How common is it to shave/trim/pluck whiskers for the show-ring?  Some websites also mention surgical removal - is that ever done here?

Some suggest that whisker removal should be re-thought. Dogs whiskers, as am sure many of you know, are not inert in the sense of a man's beard or their other hair - they are vibrissae (feeling hairs) used by the dog for various sensing duties. The little moles they root into are dense clusters of nerve cells - hence why they bleed so profusely when plucked. One mouse study found that if their whiskers were clipped on one side, it had an impact on brain development.

I see the KC issued a position statement last year (which I missed at the time):

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=3477&d=pg_dtl_art_news&h=240&f=0

I'd be interested to hear the opinions here. This is for a Dogs Today article - if someone writes someting I'd like to include, I will ask individual permission.

Jemima

> I see the KC issued a position statement last year (which I missed at the time):
>
> http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=3477&d=pg_dtl_art_news&h=240&f=0
>

The issue appears to have been covered perfectly satisfactorily there. 
I doubt surgical removal would be an operation that would receive permission for showing even if you could find a vet to perform it.  Are you sure the suggestion of such operations is coming from the UK?

I have a breed that is show as it is. No clipping, shaping or shaving (However it is creeping in from the continent and USA to sculp the coats even in my breed) Just wash and wear. I would no sooner chop off my dogs whiskers than I would it's tail. To surgically remove whiskers is yet another mutilation that is unessesary. I have for a long time thought that all dogs should be left natural. The reason so many breeds need so much extensive preperation is because we like the asthetics of the outline created. In my opinion and I accept it is MY opinion not that of many others, the only reason tails are docked is for asthetics. The need for chopping of a tail on a hunting dog like a springer serves no purpose, tails, legs, tongues, ears are all suseptable to injury and again IMO should be dealt with as and when it is neccessary not before. If getting a bushy tail caught in the brambles is a problem then trim the excess hair of before working the dog. Not it's tail..
To remove the whiskers is done purely for our own likes, not for any practical reason. The dog is better of with it's whiskers. We do so much cosmetically to our show dogs (Not me personally) we clip round the ears of Goldies, hand strip hair from terriers, shave various bits of fur off poodles etc... Strip hair from setters necks, grow long long coats then have to wrap the hair in crackers to stop it breaking in Yorkies so that many live thier lives in wrapped up papers. We shape and groom excessivly, just look at the OES in the new Dulux add he has a long flowing coat with a tail, he looks free and natural not with his coat backcombed and teased into a shape.
I would like to see all dogs show or pet washed and dried and left as nature made them.
Aileen
And for your Information JH No I do not want anything I write printed anywhere, thank you.

goodness me JH i am surprised you are asking champdogs this question or are you trying to trip up  good breeders?
considering, in my opinion, you are single handedly responsible for the huge influx of designer mongrels the foolish public are paying a fortune for, im surprised you are showing your face, especially on a 'pedigree' dog site

I have spaniels and I trim/clip the whiskers off when grooming.  I don't notice a difference in the dogs behaviour whatsoever when out exercising and although it seems to irritate them when I touch the whiskers, they don't mind them being trimmed.  I trim them back as the rest of the hair on the face/head is quite short but they do grow back very quickly.
I wouldn't go to extremes of surgery, they don't bother me that much.

Are you sure the suggestion of such operations is coming from the UK? (Surgical removal of whiskers)

No, not at all. Suspect it's just US and have no idea of how widespread the practice is there - just seen mention of it. Vets in the US will de-bark and de-claw cats so suspect they would be more amenable. I can't imagine any vet here doing the procedure.

Thanks Aileen for your input. Won't quote you.

I was pleased to see the KC statement - looks sensible. Not sure what impact it has had on those breeds where whisker removal is standard - one of the reasons for asking here.

Jemima

I have never done it with dogs, although we used to do it with the horses when we had them years ago. So i suppose its the same as doing it to a dog really?

>I have spaniels and I trim/clip the whiskers off when grooming.

Can I ask why? It would never occur to me to even do such a thing to a dog, I thought they were on dogs like cats for a reason..

> Are you sure the suggestion of such operations is coming from the UK? (Surgical removal of whiskers)
>
> No, not at all. Suspect it's just US and have no idea of how widespread the practice is there - just seen mention of it. Vets in the US will de-bark and de-claw cats so suspect they would be more amenable. I can't imagine any vet here doing the procedure.
>

So seems little of interest there for a UK article.

> Can I ask why? It would never occur to me to even do such a thing to a dog, I thought they were on dogs like cats for a reason..

If a spaniel has a smooth face I would not bother but some have very hairy faces and it is rather difficult to tidy without removing whiskers.  Leaving the whiskers would make the otherwise painfree action of plucking dead hairs off rather more painful.

Stooge wrote: "So seems little of interest there for a UK article"

It's only the surgical removal that I don't think is done here - people do trim/shave/pluck whiskers. Despite the KC statement, the practice is still fairly common and I think there's a debate to be had regarding whether we should be doing it or not.

Jemima

> think there's a debate to be had regarding whether we should be doing it or not.

It seems a little pointless.  The KC has urged people not to and could, I suppose, ban the practice for showing, but it would be difficult because of the reasons given for it being necessary at times.
Of course the vast majority of dogs are not shown and are groomed by pet owners and parlours which are nothing to do with the KC. 
Without making it illegal, which seems very heavy handed on the lack of firm evidence of any suffering, how or why should it ever stop?

Well there is some evidence that it shouldn't be done.

Here's the report that sparked the controversy - written by Prof Tom McGill, who is on the board of the Newfoundland Club of America and a past president of the Newfoundland Club of New England. As you'll see, he argues very strongly for the practice to be stopped.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30095978/WHISKER-TRIMMING-IN-SHOW-DOGS

Jemima

Am I missing something here- why would anyone do that?! Show coats are one thing (I too prefer a 'natural' looking dog but understand it is traditional to have show coats and each to their own) but actually shaving off their whiskers seems absurd, let alone surgically removing them? I don't even notice the whiskers on most dogs- surely in a show-ring setting they wouldn't pay much notice to them either?

Scratching my head over this one...

I tried to look at your link, Jemima, but it crashed my computer   Your "some evidence" comment is not selling it to me as anything conclusive however :).
The KC appear to have also considered the evidence and found it somewhat lacking  so perhaps it is not worth this storm in a teacup.  Look how whipped up posters here have already become over the idea of surgery when we have no evidence at all that it is occuring in the UK.
Are you planning to have the government ban the practice?  Would that be justified?  Who else could stop it?

Sorry it crashed your computer, Stooge.

Here's the link to the pdf:

http://tiny.cc/zi7pg

Please have a read of it and see what you think.

I don't see posters "whipped up" here - just some scratching their heads at the idea of removing whiskers by any method.

Clearly, dogs don't yelp in pain if you trim their whiskers - but given that there is quite a lot of evidence that whiskers enhance the dog's sensory experience, I certainly think the subject should be debated.

Jemima

Merlot wrote: the only reason tails are docked is for asthetics. The need for chopping of a tail on a hunting dog like a springer serves no purpose, tails, legs, tongues, ears are all suseptable to injury and again IMO should be dealt with as and when it is neccessary not before. If getting a bushy tail caught in the brambles is a problem then trim the excess hair of before working the dog. Not it's tail..

Just wondered if that was written with any background information/knowledge?  There is a large number of spaniels who suffer tail damage and its nothing to do with getting their hair caught.  I believe BASC are doing a study on the problem at the moment. 

On the original question, I know some in my breed do take the whiskers off but I'm not aware of it being done surgically.

> I certainly think the subject should be debated.
>
>

Fair enough :) 
Do you agree that trimming should continue for those dogs where the benefits outweight the suggest of some discomfort such as for hygiene or grooming out of old dead hairs likely to cause matting?
Plus my previous questions

>Are you planning to have the government ban the practice?  Would that be justified?  Who else could stop it?

I have now had the opportunity to read your link, Jemima. 
Despite the authors comment "I am naturally suspicious of anecdotal
evidence. I much prefer the comfort of highly-controlled
experiments where certain variables are manipulated
while others are held constant, and statistical analysis
determines the degree of confidence that we can place
in the results."
he does not seem to offer any supporting evidence when making such statements as these
"While some veteran
show dogs have learned that they must grin and bear it, the
majority of neophytes-and a significant proportion of
experienced animals-complain and/or actively resist
the operation."

Really, we need real evidence that dogs do find it painful to be able to compare it to any benefits before deciding if anything at all needs to be done. 
However, you are still left with the problem of what could be done beyond what the the KC has recommended because their ruling will affect so few dogs.  I really can't see the Government getting too worked up about it.

It isnt a question of discomfort, Stooge - it's whether or not we are robbing the dogs of a useful/vital sensory tool. Prof McGill, as you'll see,  argues that removing them is an "amputation".

As for legislation to prevent - nope, not in favour, certainly not on the research as it stands. It's possible I would feel differently if new science showed conclusively that it's a terrible thing to do.

As for the pros/cons - in what breeds is it considered necessary on the basis of hygiene or grooming out old dead hair? Can't you do that just by brushing? I have to say I wasn't aware of the practice at all until recently and having retriever-y breeds I have been completely unaware of the need.

Jemima

Do you agree that trimming should continue for those dogs where the benefits outweight the suggest of some discomfort such as for hygiene or grooming out of old dead hairs likely to cause matting

Not sure I believe in this  Why would the trimming off of whiskers be benifitial in terms of hygiene? My girls have thick heavy coats and sport nice whiskers and yet never have a problem with hygiene. I groom them out regularly and keep their coats in good condition. Very few dogs have such long hair on thier faces that matting would be a problem unless they are not groomed regularly. I can see some reason in removing them if the dogs face is stripped by hand...but therin lies another hate of mine, plucking hair out of dogs coats, I am intelligent enough to know that plucking out hair causes some discomfort...even if you argue that only dead hair comes out, you pull on all the hair to find the dead ones! Some breeds like Lassa's have long hair on thier faces but do not have it pulled or trimmed off for hygeinic resons (Pet's are often clipped short because owners do not spend the time in grooming) So those dogs who seem to have the whiskers cut/pulled/removed are usually the clean faced dogs, not problems there with hygiene so why do they do it?
Aileen

Its certainly not done in my breed in the uk however a few years back a woman came over from Ireland and shed shaved every last hair off the poor dogs face, fortunately they were frowned upon and it didn't catch on. For me part of the appeal is all the White beard hairs particularly on the girls lol

> It isnt a question of discomfort, Stooge - it's whether or not we are robbing the dogs of a useful/vital sensory tool. Prof McGill, as you'll see,  argues that removing them is an "amputation".
>

Well I think amputation is way over the top but you are correct, to the equation we should add any possible loss of sensory tool :)

>As for legislation to prevent - nope, not in favour, certainly not on the research as it stands.

So what is the point of this discussion?  The care of the vast majority of dogs does not lie in the hands of the KC.  When the average pet owner takes their dog to groomers and says "I want the lot off" most just do it despite the benefits of treating coats in many different way.  Without a law to stop it why do you think anything would change?

Yes, in many breeds you could remove dead hairs by brushing but how do we know that brushing over the whiskers every day particularly when a heavy moult may cause some matting around the whiskers in a very short time is not equally uncomfortable as a quick snip with the scissors.  More research needed I think if we must get upset about it all :).
And of course in some you could not remove hair by brushing, the breeds that do not moult like the Poodle and of course the many, many offspring of the Poodle crossed with sundry other breeds where the hoped for non moulting coat has occured :D
There really is no alternative but to use scissors on them.

When there are so many more pressing issues out there in society today, i can't understand your reasoning behind such a none topic on whisker removal as a proffessional journalist?
Are you just out there to fight against show breeders or are you a dedicated proffessional who will investigate hard hitting issues that need to be exposed in society?

> Are you just out there to fight against show breeders

A waste of time if she is, as I have pointed out, most dogs having their whiskers snipped off are nothing at all to do with the show ring.  The KC have already stated they wish to discourage it.

So what is the point of this discussion?  The care of the vast majority of dogs does not lie in the hands of the KC.  When the average pet owner takes their dog to groomers and says "I want the lot off" most just do it despite the benefits of treating coats in many different way.  Without a law to stop it why do you think anything would change?

There isn't a law that told Waitrose or M+S that they should no longer stock eggs from caged birds. It comes from consumer demand. And that demand didn't come until people were made aware of the welfare issues. So it's perfectly possible to change practices without legislation (and indeed I'd argue it's way more preferable to do it that way than by legislation). Driving while drunk used to be seen as a badge of honour; it's mostly frowned upon now and there is a lot of peer pressure to not jump in a car and drive home if you're over the limit. I think if people were more aware of the issue, then people might decide to stop trimming/removing whiskers for exhibition (wouldn't have thought it was a huge deal if they didn't?) and groomers might point out gently to their clients that the new thinking is that we may be doing dogs a disservice by trimming whiskers.

As for the issue being beyond the show-ring - absolutely, and I have asked the same question on a groomers' forum today to solicit opinion from them.

I do think people should be aware of the potential issue. It seems to me to be one of those practices that has become accepted that doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny.

Jemima

> I think if people were more aware of the issue, then people might decide to stop trimming/removing whiskers for exhibition

The KC have made their statement.

> and groomers might point out gently to their clients that the new thinking is that we may be doing dogs a disservice by trimming whiskers.

Have you read the grooming board?  Most people seem to expect groomers to do what is most convenient to them regardless of any attempt to explain about the value of double coats not being clipped for example so why would people accept this change based on something that "may" be a problem.  What about Poodles and Poodle coated cross breeds?

>I do think people should be aware of the potential issue.

Good luck to you but I do think if you want to take on this particular campaign a lot more needs to be firmed up with sound research evidence before deciding on the true welfare values.

Sometimes I will take off eyebrow whiskers which curl over the eyes and get in the way but others stay on.

I note our groomer trims our cockers whiskers but as we do not show him I guess it doesnt matter, I prefer him whiskery myself.

Never had the need to remove my dogs whiskers although they fall out on occasion, but I do cut my nails and theirs and they are none too keen but it is for their own good.
.

It is still common practice in my (spaniel) breed to remove whiskers in the show ring. I don't do it myself. Of the two dogs I show, one has quite fine short whiskers so even the hardened traditionalist would find it difficult to justify trimming; the other has quite heavy whiskers which were trimmed off when he was a puppy and they are growing back nicely. I have wondered how judges look at those left au naturel in amongst the trimmed dogs (e.g. whether they assume "there's a lazy exhibitor who can't be bothered turning out their dog properly").

I trim my American cocker's whiskers when I clip his face, I would never consider plucking them though!!! On the Cavaliers I just trim any of the odd ones that grow upwards towards the eye instead of outwards away from the face.

I trim my dogs whiskers/eyebrows and have never seen it as a welfare issue.
My dogs never seem upset by it & don't have any issues from it.

If I were to see someone plucking whiskers I would be concerned by it.

I see people with terriers hand stripping a coat with the little white things on their fingers (look like mini condoms) and think ouch that must be sore but then I know nothing about terriers & their coats so assume it must be needed to keep the coat in good condition.

BUT...in the grand scheme of things, the dogs owned by most members on this forum are looked after in the peak of health, waited upon 'paw, foot and finger', are fed the best quality nutrition, have every need met and are adored.

Perhaps whiskers are very low in the priority in the life many other dogs, many who are ill fed, ill exercised and ill treated.

It isnt a question of discomfort, Stooge - it's whether or not we are robbing the dogs of a useful/vital sensory tool. Prof McGill, as you'll see,  argues that removing them is an "amputation".

If amputation is such a bad thing, and robbing dogs of a useful/vital sensory tool not a good idea; why do we allow vets to amputate legs when injured? Why not put the dog down so it will not have to be robbed of such a vital tool as a leg?  Why do we not put down deaf dogs, also robbed of a useful/vtial sensory tool; why do we not put down blind dogs similarly robbed?

A lot of people think these dogs can lead happy and useful lives; what is the impact of fewer whiskers on a dog compared to loss of hearing/sight/leg?

In my breed in the uk we do not touch the whiskers , in the usa i belive they do trim , but not pluck , as a groomer i have never been asked to remove whiskers in any breed, and would'nt do it it is an integral part of the dogs sensory functions, jemma can i ask i have today been emailed by dogs today and asked if i as an KC AB want to advertise in dogs today in conjuction with a dogs today article is this the same article ? i have emailed dogs today to ask what content the article will consist of , maybe i am just being a little suspicious  but they ask if i will pay for an advert to appear directly after the article, i look forward to your reply
P.s. i am an a member of the ABS , breed club member and also welfare officer for the NNC

I have an elderly bitch here who is going blind. She uses her whiskers to help her get around. I have seen her stop and turn her head if I have moved something where it shouldn't be. Only a few inches, but enough for her to notice it had been moved. I would never think of trimming whiskers for this reason.

p.p.s  as dogs today have a record of bashing pedigree dog breeders , that is where my suspicion comes from, if they and you spent less time on US and went after the appalling puppy farmers  and the KC (as the breed clubs are trying todo) the dog world would probably be a much nicer place !

it's whether or not we are robbing the dogs of a useful/vital sensory tool.

As the whole skin surface of a dogs is a sensory organ through skin and coat I feel it is unlikely to cause a problem to remove half a dozen hairs.

Dogs have fantastic eyes, ears, scenting ability and the whole skin surface to absorb the world around them I would think suggesting that the removal of a few hairs from the face would make any difference to the dog incredibly stupidity.

Strikes me Prof McGill has an axe to grind - wonder if the Prof shaves his face, or her legs & armpits and if the Prof feels they have performed an amputation on themselves.

Pathetic that education is used to come to such stupid conclusions when there is so much else to concern ones self about the welfare of dogs, but then that would not be having a poke at the showing brigade and that seems to be the purpose in life of these people how proud they must be of all the puppy farms they have spawned.

Well the so called evidence is quite frankly weak. Its not a scientific paper at all; its a badly written article which relies on anecdotal evidence. It doesn't contain any scientific experiments into whether it is detrimental for dogs to have them cut or not, it contains no facts or figures about the actual removal - I would expect them to show numbrs of surgeries if they actually existed etc. The way the "paper" is written strikes more of a tabloid or blog standard rather than a scientific paper. Is the 4/85 at the end the date it was written? If so its woefully out of date and I am guessing things may have changed significantly by now.

Having said all that. I wouldn't remove a dogs whiskers however I have never owned breeds that need clipping etc so would have no reason to do so.

jemma can i ask i have today been emailed by dogs today and asked if i as an KC AB want to advertise in dogs today in conjuction with a dogs today article is this the same article ?

No, nothing to do with me. Sure it is Dog's Today? Sounds rather unlikey but have emailed Beverley to check.

Did you see that the report (link above) was written by a US Newfie breeder/exhibitor? I see the US standard stipulates: "Whiskers need not be trimmed" - I think in part to his campaigning on this issue. No mention in the UK standard, presumbly because no need.

Interesting to hear that as a groomer you don't remove whiskers. Others I have talked to say they do remove them and see no problems with doing so, so there's clearly a difference of opinion.

Jemima

Nova writes:

Dogs have fantastic eyes, ears, scenting ability and the whole skin surface to absorb the world around them I would think suggesting that the removal of a few hairs from the face would make any difference to the dog incredibly stupidity.

Strikes me Prof McGill has an axe to grind - wonder if the Prof shaves his face, or her legs & armpits and if the Prof feels they have performed an amputation on themselves.

Not sure if you've read the article, but the whole point is that whiskers are not hairs in the sense that we have them. These are "feelers" - rooted in a mass of nerve cells and the evidence is good that they play a role above and beyond normal hairs. The evidence is also good that removing/trimming them in other species has a deleterious effect. What the evidence is weaker on is what happens in the dog if you remove them. One of the reasons for that is harder to justify a study which would involve killing the dog to see what impact vibrissae removal has on the dog's brain.

I think that most people would feel quite strongly that it is wrong to remove a cat's whiskers. We "get" that the cat uses them as a sensory tool. Well, physiologically, the whiskers on a dog are identical.

Jemima

Whiskers are removed in any breed which has it's face clipped, you can't really clip a face and leave the whiskers in place, even if you wanted to, so breeds such as Poodle, American Cockers various terriers etc. are all smooth faced after clipping.  I have honestly never noticed any difference in behaviour or ability from a newly clipped American Cocker than from one which has been untrimmed for a while so has a set of whiskers grown back in.  OF course, this is not just show dogs, lots of pets going in to the groomers  get faces clipped clean, again without any apparent sign of discomfort or behaviour change.

It is pretty much the same thing with Horses, the whiskers on the muzzle are sensory, but when you trim a show horse's muzzle it has not trouble snuffling around in it's feed bowl or when grazing.

I think you will find it is Your dog as I got an email too.

As for whiskers, natural untrimmed breed here (any trimming a no no) in the UK and in Scandinavia.

In USA they used to take the whiskers off, but it seems to be a practise going out of favour these days.  Unfortunately they still trim/sculpt in some circles, yuk, totally unnecessary if the correct texture and length of weather proof jacket is in place.

I don't mean to pick on you Jemima but I really am baffled as to why trimming whiskers in preperation for the show ring is going to be an article in a magazine?!?!
If you are questioning a welfare issue here then I am sure there are more pressing issues in the canine world regarding welfare of dogs than trimming whiksers.

I have honestly never noticed any difference in behaviour or ability from a newly clipped American Cocker than from one which has been untrimmed for a while so has a set of whiskers grown back in.

Same here, I have never noticed a difference in my America cocker pre and post clipping his face (and with that his whiskers). However, I would never dream cutting the whiskers off in a dog that doesn't need the face clipped... my lurcher has whiskers and my saluki has the longest, sticky-outest and most beautiful whiskers you can imagine. The position of the whiskers will also tell me how he feels: sticking out when relaxed and laid back flat along his muzzle when stressed.

If there was any way of leaving the whiskers intact whilst clipping the face, I would leave them in my American cocker too, but I can't quite see how that could be done other than not clipping his face at all.

> Whiskers are removed in any breed which has it's face clipped, you can't really clip a face and leave the whiskers in place, even if you wanted to,

> I have honestly never noticed any difference in behaviour or ability from a newly clipped American Cocker than from one which has been untrimmed for a while so has a set of whiskers grown back in. OF course, this is not just show dogs, lots of pets going in to the groomers get faces clipped clean, again without any apparent sign of discomfort or behaviour change.

I have to scissor the face of one of mine and inevitably the whiskers get snipped off too. I might try not to cut them next time I trim him but I think it a near impossible task.

There's certainly no difference between him and my other non-trimmed dogs.

That's not to say I think it's okay to pluck whiskers, surgical removal or anything like that.

Sorry my mistake it was "Your dogs" just seemed a coincedence   the email was the same day as your post, no i dont remove whiskers , most clipped breeds i do tend to be working dogs and the owners do not request a clean face , more for protection whilst working , i suppose if you are showing it maybe different but i would'nt like to do it , but its just my opinion

jemima, can you explain why whisker removal is so important an issue when there are currently more serious issues to look at?

Because Tilly it's another way to snipe at the show breeders and bitch what they put their dogs through.