Your Pets May Be Fine Exactly As They Are

“We work to save tails, toes, ears and more from invasive non-therapeutic pet procedures,” says Olivia Wakeman of the National Pet Advocacy and Welfare Society. An initiative that began in 2019, NPAWS seeks to spread the message that such procedures as tail docking, ear cropping and declawing constitute cruelty to animals. Wakeman told OZY that these procedures are harmful to dogs and, in essence, are “normalized pet cruelty.” This view was shared by the British Veterinary Association, which stated that “puppies suffer unnecessary pain as a result of tail docking and are deprived of a vital form of canine expression in later life.”

Most people know why dogs wag their tails or put them between their legs. Docking a dog's tail limits its range of expression. So does cropping ears. Dogs use their ears to help owners, and other animals, understand how they are feeling.

“I used to walk my previous dog, Milton, in the park almost every day,” Wakeman explained. “In the beginning, I was like everyone else and didn’t even see the docked tails and cropped ears all around me. Then, when different Boxers at different times attacked my mild-mannered pup, I started asking, ‘Why?’ It turns out that dogs with docked tails are unable to signal their intentions.”

It has been proven that tail docking results in acute pain and often causes behavioral distress in puppies. Ear cropping can also lead to suffering. As a result, tail docking and ear cropping for aesthetic reasons have been banned in many European countries, along with Australia, South Africa and Turkey. However, according to Wakeman, “the U.S. is shamefully behind” on this issue.

“Cats have it bad, too,” Wakeman told OZY. Some cat owners declaw their cats to stop them from scratching. As a surgical procedure, declawing effectively amputates the last digits of the cat’s toe, to stop the growth of claws. As Dr. Sara Ochoa, a veterinary consultant, says, “This is just like you cutting your finger off at your first knuckle.” There is no benefit for the cat, which may then experience heightened vulnerability in its paws, or what Wakeman calls “tender toes.”

Historically there were various reasons for tail cropping, including the false belief that it prevented a dog from contracting rabies. Other reasons had more legitimacy: Working dogs can injure their tails and, once injured, could become severely infected, especially in the absence of modern medicine. However, the U.K.’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that these days “basic first aid would probably be adequate in most cases” of tail injuries.

Following a seven-year study, veterinary researchers at the University of Edinburgh concluded in 1994 that tail docking could not be recommended as a preventive measure in non-working dogs. Other studies have shown that tail injuries occur in 1 in 500 dogs. As Wakeman asks rhetorically, “If someone said that you had a 1 in 500 chance of injuring your finger sometime in your life, would you cut it off?” Alwyn Marais, of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, posits that the practice is “merely the exploitation of animals for financial gain.” Today, most cropping and docking takes place for aesthetic reasons.

The practices of cropping and docking are written into many of the judging standards used to evaluate dogs in American Kennel Club sanctioned shows, which means that people may have to dock or crop in order to participate in such shows. According to the AKC, docking and cropping are “integral to defining and preserving breed character” and, in reference to working dogs, the AKC contends that such physical modifications preserve “a dog’s ability to perform its historic function.”

Even though ear cropping is illegal in the U.K., the practice has recently seen a sharp rise in popularity. Some believe this trend is due to widely-circulated images of celebrities with ear-cropped dogs.

on The Carlos Watson Show, Season 4!

Though it now lags behind many other nations, America once led the fight against animal cruelty. One of the world's first examples of legislation seeking to protect animals was found in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641). Its 92nd passage stated: “No man shall exercise any Tirranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usuallie kept for man’s use.”

Despite the Massachusetts law, most people at the time did not care about the rights of animals. The philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) argued that animals were simply “mechanisms.” It would take over a hundred years before the first recognized animal rights activist, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), argued against Descartes' view. Being one of the founders of utilitarianism or “the greatest happiness principle,” Bentham believed in the prevention of suffering. Extending this belief to animals, he wrote, “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?”

Wakeman and NPAWS have taken a cue from the body positivity movement, which emphasizes functionality and health over cultural ideals of beauty that are often unrealistic and harmful. Applying this concept to animals, NPAWS seeks to raise awareness for the “Pet Positive Movement” by sharing information about the harm caused by permanently altering an animal’s appearance.

Do you think the U.S. should follow the lead of countries that already banned tail docking and ear cropping?

Share your thoughts with us at [email protected].