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:

Just When You Thought the Barbara Woodhouse Days Were Over

While enjoying a walk along my local seaside promenade the other day we spied an exasperated woman screaming at her dog and violently pulling its head back whenever it got more than a foot in front of her. After half a dozen of these actions she finally yanked the poor cowering dog so hard she almost took its head off and lifted it off the ground even though it was a big dog.

Deciding enough was enough we caught her up and admonished her, (not always a good plan), but she turned her frustration and anger on us saying she was doing nothing wrong and that her dog behaviourist had advised her to do it. She suggested I should have a word with him. I replied that I would be glad to do so, but I was sure he hadn’t quite told her to be so violent. My wife gave her a parting comment that the days of Barbara Woodhouse were long over, but are they?

For those too young to remember Barbara Woodhouse was a highly celebrated and regarded dog trainer across the world in the 1970’s and 1980’s with TV programmes, books and documentaries about her methods. This was mainly because of her perceived eccentricity which always makes good TV, but she was regarded by many dog owners with misbehaving dogs as a saviour. But others looked upon her as heavy handed and cruel with her domineering methods.

Dog training is big business and lucrative.

History often repeats itself and recently there has been controversy about an American dog trainer named Jeff Gellman visiting a seminar in Scotland. He is alleged to hit dogs with a rolled up towel and uses prong collars and remote control shock collars to keep dogs in line. The use of such instruments of torture are much used in North America and are readily available on the internet in the U.K. He has become another showman celebrity with tens of thousands watching his YouTube videos. Owners queue up willing to pay £750 for a session with him, but the Scottish SPCA were not happy about his visit or his methods and there is even a change.org petition against him. Dog training is big business and very lucrative but as always totally unregulated.

Genuine and sincere dog trainer or another showman – you to decide.

But his methods highlight the great division that still exists after decades of research and debate regarding the best and most humane way of training a dog to fit in with our modern lifestyles. Every self proclaimed dog behaviourist and trainer has their own ideas or choose the in fashion dogma of the day. But then everybody likes to think they are a dog expert.

The argument over negative and positive reinforcement.

The main division between the “experts” is whether “aversive” or “negative reinforcement” training i.e. using a bit of brute force like Mr Gellman and Barbara Woodhouse is cruel and counter productive and stress dogs out compared with “positive reinforcement” where dogs are bribed with treats and praised to toe the line.

A recent study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour indicated that 65% of dogs trained with “aversive” or “negative reinforcement” (note we must have technical terms for all this) methods i.e. using punishment showed signs of stress such as mouth licking, shaking and whining compared with only 8% of those trained by “positive” or reward and praise methods. Whether this is scientifically sound or not, common sense dictates that hitting, yanking and electrocuting dogs is probably not the most humane course of action.

It seems to be human nature for us to always complicate issues and so we have established a new science: the science of animal behaviour in which we can become professionals, get diplomas and degrees, put letters behind our names, carry out research, argue, debate, write papers and come up with exactly nothing conclusive or tangible. We now live in a world of dog behaviourists, clinical animal behaviourists, psychiatrists, counsellors and a variety of trainers to make dogs compliant and contented with our modern lifestyles.

One side of the argument maintains that the positive approach leads to them being spoilt and entrenches bad behaviour whereas those against the punishment approach believe it causes mental trauma and impacts long-term welfare. Realistically the sheer act of training a dog to comply with our selfish demands is an act of dominance whatever method used to make it comply with our will. For many owners, like the exasperated lady on the promenade who was obviously at the end of her own tether, any method that solves the problem is OK with them, cruel or not.

Our lifestyles are the cause of their behavioural and mental health problems.

But ironically it is us who have inflicted our mental health and behavioural problems onto them through our lack of understanding of their needs. The world and our attitude to dog management and care has radically changed. They have to be under our control at all times and because of our hectic lives we have no option but to leave them home alone, fail to walk them as we should and generally do not give them the attention they desire. We have confused them to the point where they do not understand their role in our lives. We are barking up the wrong tree, if you’ll excuse the pun, by focusing on changing our dog’s behaviour. Perhaps we need a science of dog ownership to help guide us into being more thoughtful and responsible owners.

I do wonder if we read too much into dog training. I have little practical experience of dog training. I have always been willing to put up with the odd foibles a dog of mine might have and find ways of circumventing any problems that might arise because of them, rather than destroying their will and individual character, but this method doesn’t have all the answers either.