I don't like 'chopping bits off just in case' either which is why I wont chop his balls off without reason If he had retained one or any other sound medical reason he should have been neutered then fair enough, I would, as it would be for his benefit, otherwise it would just be 'chopping bits off just in case'

If I neuter my dog or if I dont it will make no difference to the amount of rescue dogs that die every day so I just dont see the sense in me doing it to him.

I think some people who neuter are responsible but some arent. Different people do it for different reasons. But the lab that has been allowed off lead and out of sight to charge my dog over and over as well as crossing the road to get to him and other dogs, are they responsible dog owners, since their dog is neutered? not IMO or experience they are not. For many its seen as an easy way out, an excuse and a fix-it-all cure, which is not. Others may have very valid reasons for neutering and be responsible about their decision.

Funnily enough my dog with 'flat ears' has perfectly clean ears all the time, but the dogs with upright ears need regular cleaning. No infections though.

Well (touch wood) I havent had a dog with an ear infection either
Yes some breeds due to how we have made their ears are more prone to infections and I think that is wrong too - I dont agree with breeding animals in a way that makes them likely to have isues
and personally as we are able to create many mutations in breeding then if a different ear set/tail carrage is needed for the animal to do their job then perhaps we should be focusing on that rather than excesive skin and ears they can step on

and yes I can see the point about spay/neuter, I had no choice as I rescue and I agree with why rescues do that

Dew claws
Yes some breeds have very loose hind leg dew claws that can cause problems - so while we should be looking at the breeding I also agree that that can sometimes need done

But imo there is no reason to remove the front dew claws, all the ones I have seen are fully attached as a thumb is, the dogs DO use them and the studies I have seen the removal of them destabalises the joint and can cause artheritis
Yes sometimes dogs can injure them - as they can break toes and stuff - should we chop off all their toes just incase??

is there an element of tradition,in cropping and docking.or does it matter,are there any issues there.

Ive never actually heard of a dobe having arthritis around the toe joints due to front dew claw removal. This is a pretty standard procedure for dobe pups. and I think saying cut off all their toes just in case is taking things a bit far...its obvious to me the difference between the front toes and the dew claws how potentially serious injuries may occur.

My dog has injured her front dewclaws several times, involving trips to the vets, and lot of discomfort - she certainly would have been better off without them.

Two of my dogs that have had their front dewclaws removed have no joint instability or arthritis. Strange or what?

3 of mine have had their dew claws removed and 3 still have them, none of them have injured or damaged them in any way and none have arthritis either but the three that still have them use them while holding onto their bones to gnaw and they act exactly like a thumb would do.

iv got 2 with and two without,id rather none,iv seen injeriesas well

All my dogs are able to hold onto a bone to gnaw, dewclaws or no dewclaws.