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:

Dog Licensing Could Aid Animal Welfare Law Enforcement.

The reintroduction of dog licensing in England & Wales could be an opportunity to aid animal welfare law enforcement and tackle many of the major issues surrounding irresponsible ownership. The old dog licence, which cost a ridiculous 37 pence (18.5p), was scrapped in 1987 on the pretext of being too difficult to administer and enforce. Over the last decade there has been debate and interest in some quarters of resurrecting a new licensing system. There has also been government funded research by academics at Middlesex University into ways of promoting responsible dog ownership which could include a tax on dog owners of £100 per dog.

Those against reintroducing a license scheme insist that it would still be impossible to implement successfully, but it must be remembered that the old system was operating during a time when computers and the internet did not exist. Technology has moved on and we haven’t given up on issuing TV licences, driving licences or fishing licences, so what makes dog licencing any different.

The Dogs Trust appear to be against the idea, preferring education instead, but there seems to be general public support for the move. The Kennel Club, the bastion of dog owning is of course against any form of dog owning restrictions and state that such a move would penalise responsible dog owners who are most likely to comply and states Less caring and irresponsible owners would again get away with it. But licensing should be focused on irresponsible owners.

Northern Ireland, the only part of UK with dog licensing, leads the way.

Northern Ireland enforces licensing and owners must have an annual license costing £12.50 for each dog aged over 6 months otherwise they commit an offence. The penalties include a warning, formal caution, fixed penalty or a fine up to £1000.

A licence has to be obtained prior to taking possession of a dog and puppies must be microchipped at eight weeks. Anyone giving, selling or taking possession without a licence commits an offence and is liable to a £1,000 fine. A licence is invalidated if the owner fails to keep their details updated or correct. Dogs must also wear a collar and name tag and non compliance is also a £1000 fine.

Although these regulations seem quite draconian it could be argued that they could have gone much further when formulating the legislation and have underestimated the potential to curb irresponsible ownership and aid animal welfare law enforcement.

There are so many problems in the U.K. of neglect and general welfare of dogs which licensing could play a great part in alleviating. These include hoarding, puppy farms, overrun pseudo sanctuaries, multi-dog households, dangerous dogs and removal of at risk dogs which is still a difficult procedure even under the present Animal Welfare Act 2006 which was supposed to make early intervention easier. But the measures must be uncompromising if the welfare of dogs is the paramount factor.

Vaccination, neutering & pet insurance should be part of licence conditions.

The cost of a licence needs to be set at a high price to deter people from taking on more dogs than they can afford to care for, which will in effect promote more responsibility. Each dog in a household or premises that cannot substantiate it is a genuine charity or business must have a licence with no exemptions for the owner’s age, financial status or living standards.

Apart from the mandatory microchipping, already required in the UK, there could be an opportunity to add vaccination, neutering and even valid basic pet insurance to the requirement for a licence. A register of animal cruelty offenders could also be allied to the dog licensing scheme. This would be a great step towards eradicating feckless ownership and alleviating the problem of owners whose intent is to be charity dependent and take away the burden or even need for veterinary charities.

Northern Ireland have gone some way towards these ideals, but allow exemptions for owners on certain benefits who can obtain a licence at a discounted price which arguably sends the wrong message about responsibility. The cost of basic insurance is not beyond the means of any ‘suitable’ or responsible owner.

Powers to seize unlicensed dogs

The power to seize unlicensed dogs must be included in legislation similar to car owners caught with no valid driving licence, insurance or MOT who have their cars seized. It is an accepted fact that the so called “less caring and irresponsible owners who would again get away with it” are generally (but not always) those owners that cause many of the problems, and are less likely to be in possession of a licence for all their dogs. Such a power would allow simple removal from harm by enforcement officers if urgent action is required, subject of course to other formalities such as warrants and veterinary advice.

Such draconian measures may sound extreme, but they are the only way to combat the incessant problems of irresponsible and neglectful ownership. Unfortunately, England has a track record of implementing ineffective animal laws borne out yet again by the recent criticism over microchipping, but we need to take the “bull by the horns”. Approaching the issues with half-hearted initiatives has not been successful over the last few decades and although many people advocate education, those that need it most, take little heed. Sadly for the sake of dog welfare we need more stick and less carrot.