Decrowing Roosters.

[Time-Out]

Hmmm my hen was given steroids a few weeks later. The lady on the phone must have read the wrong name out. For the record, my hen wasn't dumpy, she was practically dead. She wouldn't stand or even lift her head and open her eyes. She was completely limp. The vet didn't think she'd make it, but made the effort to help her anyway. The hen pulled through and proved to be a fighter (and a lap-hen). I'm extremely grateful to that vet. Much better than the one who told me to let my chicks with cocci die!

 

[bluedogsonly]

They taught us in vet school to "never let anything die without the benefit of steroids". Good drugs that get alot of use when there isn't much for other options. Just wouldnt use it for pain management. Did look up that Rimadyl works in birds but itd have to be injectable because of such a small dose. There actually was a paper about using it in lame chickens.

Dr. James

 

[Time-Out]

She was given steroids for swelling and scratching some weeks after the incident, which is why I think the lady on the phone may have given me the wrong name. I'll ring back later.
The steroids really messed her tummy up, though. She wasn't a happy chicky.

 

[janinepeters]

I'll need to do some researching to find what NSAID is ok for birds.

I understand the cost issue. But, we do the same procedures with the same equiptment and drugs as MD's, radiologist, anesthesiologists, surgeons and dentists etc. Just compare the costs. I agree that human medicine is too expensive, but there are alot of vets that undervalue their services (yours truly) and some over value it. With the cost of things, interest on my school loans (which are huge, over a quarter million between my gal and I) and such, this is still a business.

How about meloxicam for chickens? This drug worked wonders for my rabbit with severe arthritis, my cat with cystitis (yes, I know the about the associated risk of renal failure in cats, but this cat was quite ill), and for my own tendonitis.

I'm with you on the financial issue. I've always thought you guys are underpaid and wonder how you manage your school loans, so I've never begrudged a single vet bill. I went to med school in the late '80's, practiced psychiatry for 10 years, and closed my practice after loans were paid (but really to raise my kids). On a 2nd career now, just finishing up a master's in conservation biology, but that's beside the point.

 

[RedDrgn]

To me, this is like de-barking a dog. Yes, it can be done and done with the health and safety of the animal in tact, by it just screams, "Whyyy??" to me when crowing is as intrinsic to the roo as barking to a dog; it's part of what they are and how they work. Also, how does this impact the roos ability to cluck and bok and bagok and utilize their incredible range of vocalizations to communicate with his flock? If he can't give the alarm signal, a big portion of one of their functions is gone.

I understand that some people want roosters in a location where they can't have roosters, but people face that issue with just about every other animal on the planet, too. So

 

[janinepeters]

To me, this is like de-barking a dog. Yes, it can be done and done with the health and safety of the animal in tact, by it just screams, "Whyyy??" to me when crowing is as intrinsic to the roo as barking to a dog; it's part of what they are and how they work. Also, how does this impact the roos ability to cluck and bok and bagok and utilize their incredible range of vocalizations to communicate with his flock? If he can't give the alarm signal, a big portion of one of their functions is gone.

I think he said they can still crow and make other vocalizations, but at reduced volume. However, I totally agree with your point that it still might be extremely frustrating for the bird, and I don't buy the argument that you can totally rule out frustration (or pain just after surgery) by observing the bird's behavior. To me it makes little sense to assume chickens always show how they feel. It's adaptive for people to show when they are suffering, because other people help them. But it's not adaptive for a chicken to show it, because their flock mates often bully or kill them, and predators might be attracted to them.

I would think of decrowing as a last resort procedure, and would favor not an out and out ban, but a requirement to show that it is a last resort. I believe this is how it works for debarking in Australia (?? I read about it several years ago, and not sure if my memory serves me correctly). I do think it's best to allow it as a last resort, because most animals would probably choose decrowing or debarking over death.

 

[RedDrgn]

I think he said they can still crow and make other vocalizations, but at reduced volume. However, I totally agree with your point that it still might be extremely frustrating for the bird, and I don't buy the argument that you can totally rule out frustration (or pain just after surgery) by observing the bird's behavior. To me it makes little sense to assume chickens always show how they feel. It's adaptive for people to show when they are suffering, because other people help them. But it's not adaptive for a chicken to show it, because their flock mates often bully or kill them, and predators might be attracted to them.

I would think of decrowing as a last resort procedure, and would favor not an out and out ban, but a requirement to show that it is a last resort. I believe this is how it works for debarking in Australia (?? I read about it several years ago, and not sure if my memory serves me correctly). I do think it's best to allow it as a last resort, because most animals would probably choose decrowing or debarking over death.

I agree that it's better than death, especially since sexing chickens isn't 100% and in consideration of some of the reports of received chicks and epic sexing errors you have to wonder if 90% accuracy is all its cracked up to be. So I definitely see legitimate instances where this procedure would be a useful and perhaps preferred option over trying to find a roo a new home where it would get to live its life or making a meal out of it.

However, I think it'd be very difficult to restrict it to a legal "last resort" procedure in the States. Like someone else mentioned, you don't need roos to successfully raise chickens and there's a reason why some animals are considered country/farm animals. So beyond a sexing accident, it'd just be an aesthetic procedure; not sure if that makes it right or wrong. At least spaying/neutering serves more than a cosmetic/comfort purpose (reduce feral populations and general over-population of animals). The subject is a slippery slope to tread on, I think; a lot of potential under and cross currents beneath the surface.

 

[janinepeters]

I agree that it's better than death, especially since sexing chickens isn't 100% and in consideration of some of the reports of received chicks and epic sexing errors you have to wonder if 90% accuracy is all its cracked up to be. So I definitely see legitimate instances where this procedure would be a useful and perhaps preferred option over trying to find a roo a new home where it would get to live its life or making a meal out of it.

However, I think it'd be very difficult to restrict it to a legal "last resort" procedure in the States. Like someone else mentioned, you don't need roos to successfully raise chickens and there's a reason why some animals are considered country/farm animals. So beyond a sexing accident, it'd just be an aesthetic procedure; not sure if that makes it right or wrong. At least spaying/neutering serves more than a cosmetic/comfort purpose (reduce feral populations and general over-population of animals). The subject is a slippery slope to tread on, I think; a lot of potential under and cross currents beneath the surface.

Right, and maybe the greatest value of banning it but as a last resort procedure, would be that doing so assumes that animals are more than just a piece of property and that they have the capacity to suffer. This will make some people think more carefully about how they treat their living "property" in general. I personally think that's the most important function of any humane law.

 

[Kassaundra]

I agree that it's better than death, especially since sexing chickens isn't 100% and in consideration of some of the reports of received chicks and epic sexing errors you have to wonder if 90% accuracy is all its cracked up to be. So I definitely see legitimate instances where this procedure would be a useful and perhaps preferred option over trying to find a roo a new home where it would get to live its life or making a meal out of it.

However, I think it'd be very difficult to restrict it to a legal "last resort" procedure in the States. Like someone else mentioned, you don't need roos to successfully raise chickens and there's a reason why some animals are considered country/farm animals. So beyond a sexing accident, it'd just be an aesthetic procedure; not sure if that makes it right or wrong. At least spaying/neutering serves more than a cosmetic/comfort purpose (reduce feral populations and general over-population of animals). The subject is a slippery slope to tread on, I think; a lot of potential under and cross currents beneath the surface.

I think spaying and neutering is for the "comfort / convienience" of the pet owner. There are other options, keeping only same sex animals, keeping good fence, keeping all cats as indoor, etc... but these options are less desirable to the pet owner as a quick surgery. Spaying and neutering not only causes pain, but permenantly changes the personality and physical nature of the pet (like more calm and easier to gain weight) That being said I have all my pets spayed and neutered. There is a saying in emergency human medicine "no one ever died of pain" not meaning to be needlessly callous, just saying that sometimes relieving the pain is more dangerous then letting it be.

 

[janinepeters]

I think spaying and neutering is for the "comfort / convienience" of the pet owner. There are other options, keeping only same sex animals, keeping good fence, k ency human medicine "no one ever died of pain" not meaning to be needlessly callous, just saying that sometimes relieving the pain is more dangerous then letting it be.

Well, one could argue that intact animals prevented from mating might experience a lot of frustration, which might end after neutering. I think it would be difficult to quantify and compare the positive and negative subjective and health impacts on the animal. But since spaying/neutering helps prevent overpopulation and the suffering of other animals, it's a good "social habit", if you will. So many people seem to have difficulty adequately caring for themselves and their families, and expecting them to maintain good fencing (look at how many people in these forums choose killing predators over maintaining effective fencing), or to keep same sex animals, would simply be ineffective. Spaying/neutering is an easier, one shot deal. So yes, it's a sort of "convenience", but still may be the better choice.