Is Ear Cropping & Tail Docking Illegal or Not in the UK?

With so many people now parading their cropped and docked dogs around the streets, it is difficult to believe that ear cropping is banned in the U.K. It has been illegal for well over the lifespan of any dog born in the U.K. since the Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force so realistically every dog should have an intact tail and natural ears.

The situation is not helped by the celebrity culture. Over the years there has been a long line of “celebs” parading their cropped and docked dogs on social media all professing either ignorance or indifference to the fact that it fuels the demand, their only interest being the “coolness” of it. The latest is Diversity star Jordan Banjo who in December 2020 posted pictures of his new dog Sergio with cropped ears which was thankfully, to his apparent surprise, met by a barrage of condemnation. In his defence he is quoted as saying:

“I can’t pretend to have known all of the information on cropped ears, I don’t even want to pretend to be misinformed, to be blunt I didn’t even think about it in the first instance. I didn’t get his ears cut, I didn’t even import him. It upsets me to think that Sergio or any dog goes through this purely to look ‘cooler’” Jordan Banjo

Such obviously bogus outpourings of ignorance and upset over the cruelty involved highlights the mentality of people who insist on treating animals as cool and cute objects.

Jordan Banjo with Sergio
Jordan Banjo with Sergio. Celebrities have no problem about encouraging ear cropping and sadly many people think it is a natural look.

The ban on ear cropping impossible to enforce.

The reason for any confusion is that once again when formulating animal welfare laws in the UK, the powers to be did not give sufficient thought to the practicalities and what dog owners might do to circumvent the law. It was a simple case of importing ready made cropped and docked dogs from countries where the procedures are still legal such as from Europe and the USA. There is nothing preventing anyone owning such a dog as long as any suffering has been caused abroad which has given the public the impression it is acceptable.

The common sight of mutilated imported dogs on the streets has made it easier for UK entrepreneurs to continue cropping and docking illegally and assimilate them into the population without comment.

The confusion is not helped when the England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland governments all have a different interpretation and approach over the legality of docking. The RSPCA has had to turn to the veterinary profession for help in curbing illegal activity and in turn veterinarians have had to ask their governing body what they are meant to be doing about it.

The RSPCA are backing a petition to ban the import of ear cropped dogs instigated by a dog trainer and welfare campaigner (2020) which is long overdue and needs your support.

U.K. celebrity dog breeder prosecuted

The recent prosecution of a so called “celebrity UK dog breeder” puts the whole situation into focus. The breeder was found in possession of dozens of puppies with cropped ears and tools of the trade for cropping ears i.e. syringes, razor blades and forceps like a burglar going equipped. He was given a suspended prison sentence, banned for life from keeping and dealing dogs, (appeal possible after 15 years), made to pay £11,000 ($14,000) court costs and told to take part in community service.

Various cuts just like going to the hairdresser.

There are at least 20 breeds of dog that are traditionally docked and/or cropped including Dobermans, Mastiffs, Schnauzers, American Bullys and Pitbulls, Boston terriers and Boxers mainly to comply with show standards but increasingly owners think they look better or “hard” and some even think it is a natural look. Sadly there are a variety of styles of ear cropping available to suit the circumstances just like going to the hairdresser. Unfortunately many kennel clubs around the world still live in the dark ages and endorse the practice to maintain breed standards.

Most countries that have imposed bans went down the same route as the U.K. by allowing dogs to be imported and some have even allowed them to continue entering dog shows. Ironically, Germany, the birth place of many of the traditionally mutilated breeds, has also imposed a ban. There was recent controversy in Malta, when a cropped Doberman won the national dog show even though they have a ban, again because it was imported. The FCI, the international body behind most international dog shows, allows cropped dogs and publishes lists of countries without bans, so obviously supports these practices.

Confusingly, the UK doesn’t allow docked or cropped dogs to shows where people pay admission fees, but allow them at shows where no charge is made. The U.K. Kennel Club in 2016 changed their policy from not allowing cropped dogs to allowing “spectator” cropped dogs to be present to basically show them off. They oppose the showing and docking bans, but insist they want consistency in legislation.

The procedures are totally unnecessary and have no health or welfare benefits

As with all controversial issues opposing sides line up with a variety of reasons for either keeping mutilation legal or not, some of them rather nonsensical or surreal opinions. Pro mutilators maintain it is good for the dogs’s health and painless and that they can hear better, suffer less ear infections and if a guard dog an attacker has less to grab hold of. Those using them for fighting like them to be ear less and tailless so that the dogs cannot show submissive signs to their opponent. Those in between in the argument state the choice is that of the owner to decide “based on what is best for your dog“, but the bottom line is that such procedures are totally unnecessary involving painful aftercare and have no realistic welfare benefits.

Of course there is and has always been a simple solution to the problem. If we were really sincere in stopping the practices we could make it unlawful to be in possession of a cropped or docked dog and to ban imports, but of course that would be too easy.

Tailless Boxer dog, tail docking

Related Article:

Goldfish eating, social media and Neknominate

The recent prosecution by the RSPCA of Josh Coles for eating a goldfish that he had just won at a fairground in Stafford caused a stir on social media and revulsion in many people, but there are those that see it as just a bit of harmless fun. Josh Coles pleaded guilty and received a 12 month community service order, £385 costs and was strangely banned from keeping fish for 5 years.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue, I’m an animal lover”.

To its credit, the RSPCA stepped in early on when the craze became popular and has prosecuted many cases over the years but has perversely been accused of heavy handedness and expending money on pointless and worthless prosecutions as they are only fish.

Many people would suggest that as we pay little attention to fish slowly gasping for breath and asphyxiating on the quayside or on fish market slabs and that we find it entertaining to watch celebrities eat live small animals on reality shows why should we be so uptight about a goldfish.

What obviously shocked people the most was the fact that he ate a live goldfish, filmed it and displayed it on YouTube for no other reason than to gain fame and notoriety. It could also be that we identify goldfish and their ilk as pets not food, so we get upset when some inept unthinking person eats one at a funfair, in a Macdonalds restaurant or in the local pub.

Although these acts are mostly done under the influence of alcohol and for a dare there are many which are intentional and planned. Back in 2012, Louis Cole gained fame for regularly eating unusual live animals such as tarantulas and scorpions on his YouTube channel until he came unstuck after he ate a simple goldfish, as he didn’t realise that fish, by having a spine, are covered under anti-cruelty laws and he found himself under investigation by the RSPCA.

Eating live small animals is a common practice and a sure way of getting hits on social media which is awash with such videos. The sad part is that so many young adults appear to find it acceptable behaviour and amusing despite its lack of originality.

It was probably a surprise to many people that it is still lawful to continue this archaic tradition of giving goldfish as prizes in the first place, but it was yet another omission from the Animal Welfare Act back in 2006. Of course the frequency of these incidents could have been reduced if it had been banned as the fish would not have been so easily available.

Social media & Neknominate is mainly to blame.

The online drinking game of neknominate has fuelled the trend over the last few years. In 2014 a 22-year old named Gavin Hope prepared a cocktail then swallowed a pet goldfish and washed it down with a pint as a neknominate dare and was heavily penalised with a £330 fine and £3430 costs. Some take it too far and in the same year Sheldon Jeans swallowed a live frog and lizard and was prosecuted receiving £1,200 in costs.

Although such behaviour is nothing new, social media encourages far more of it in this modern era. There is a pattern to it though, as it mainly involves drunken young males who once they find themselves in court declare they didn’t mean any harm and believe it is funny.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue and I’m an animal lover”

In another incident a Robert Atkinson aged 20 was filmed by his friend Lewis Summers, who ironically worked in a solicitors office, swallowing a live goldfish in their local MacDonald’s having first put it in a pint of beer. Atkinson pleaded guilty and Summers guilty to aiding and abetting and they were both ordered to serve 40 hours of unpaid work and pay a £723 fine each, alongside a victim surcharge of £60. It was a premeditated action and yet he viewed himself as an “animal lover”.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue with it being a small animal. I’m an animal lover myself and I didn’t know I was committing an offence. I have thousands of followers on social media, and I posted the video because I knew it would go viral. Some people thought it was funny but there were a few who thought it was cruel.

Robert Atkinson in his defence.

Judges and Magistrates appear to take the issue seriously.

What is interesting is that magistrates and judges appear to agree that it is a serious act and have made this quite clear. At the trial of Gavin Hope presiding magistrate, David Randall, called it “a stupid thoughtless incident” and at the trial of Atkinson and Summers the judge, to his credit, summed it up in this way and I cannot put it any better:

The real question is how far down the evolutionary scale should we go in pursuing prosecutions of people who commit such acts of cruelty before it is viewed as nonsensical and heavy handed. Theoretically any lack of respect of a living creature must surely be tackled as who knows where it might lead if left unpunished.