Nip and tuck - the painful cost of breed standards

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in England has ruled these procedures are unethical and “an unjustified mutilation” when done for cosmetic reasons. England bans docking and cropping except by veterinarians and only for medical necessity.

The 39-member Council of Europe Convention opposes docking and cropping, and about 30 countries ban these procedures as unjustified mutilation. The World Small Animal Veterinary Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and the 76,000-member American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) oppose docking or cropping for cosmetic reasons.

In 1976, the AVMA had asked the AKC to eliminate ear crops as part of its standards. In 1986, it asked the AKC to “change breed and show standards”. In 1999, with breeders and the AKC ignoring previous requests, the AVMA condemned the practice for cosmetic reasons as “cruel and barbaric [and] not medically indicated nor of benefit to the patient”. The AVMA suggested that veterinarians “should counsel dog owners against such procedures”.

Then, in November 2008, the AVMA issued a short, terse policy statement, based upon extensive analysis of scientific literature and available clinical information: “The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.” Surprisingly, there wasn’t significant public opposition. “A substantial proportion” of comments “were supportive,” says Dr. Gail C Golab, director of the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division.

Both the AKC and CDB, as well as individual breeders, mounted heavy opposition. The CDB, like thousands of breeders, claims that because certain breeds were bred with little attention to “tail length, shape or carriage,” if the breeds were not docked, “it is unlikely that the best dogs would carry good tails … breeders would therefore be left with a diminished number of suitable sires and dams [and] the genetic pool would be reduced, greatly increasing the risk of hereditary disease taking hold [and] some breeds could even disappear for ever”. There have “never been any reputable trials that could even remotely claim” such practices are beneficial to dogs, according to the Australian Veterinary Association.

Docking was once believed to prevent rabies and injuries associated with hunting and fighting. In England, tails were routinely docked to avoid a general tax upon working dogs with tails. Parliament repealed the tax in 1796.

In 17th and early 18th century America, paranoid Puritans believed dogs’ tails were possessed by demons, and cut them off. In some countries, tails were docked because dogs “have to hunt game through heavy vegetation and thick brambles, where their fast tail action can easily lead to torn and bleeding tails which are painful and extremely difficult to treat,” according to the CDB. The CDB claims that even non-working breeds “which have an enthusiastic tail action are also liable to damage their tails,” even if they only “work” at home.

“Nonsense,” says Hodges. “Severe tail injuries are extremely rare,” she says, “and proper medical treatment can usually benefit the few dogs that do sustain such injuries”.

In contrast to AKC and breeder claims that docking is somehow beneficial, Hodges points out that dogs with amputated tails can develop painful nerve scar tissue or neuromas, similar to what humans develop when a limb is amputated. Veterinarians and animal behaviourists recognise that the tail helps a dog to balance and, more importantly, to communicate with other animals and humans. Among water dogs, the tail also acts as a rudder. “When we see animals,” says Hodges, “we look at their body language, and we can learn a lot about them from seeing how they move their ears and tail.”

The CDB also says “long haired, thick coated breeds … are docked to avoid the hair around the base of the tail becoming fouled by faeces.” It claims, “even with constant grooming and washing, such fouling is unpleasant. If allowed to get out of hand, it can lead to severe problems of hygiene, or even flystrike and subsequent infestation by maggots.” However, large-tailed dogs, including German shepherds and collies, have no difficulty figuring out how to avoid hygiene problems.

Cropping minimises ear infections, avoids later ear injuries, or improves hearing, according to both the AKC and the CDB. “There is no evidence that cropping prevents or successfully treats these conditions,” according to the AVMA.” A major study of almost 17,000 dogs in Germany revealed there is no evidence that ear cropping reduces ear infections. Animals which develop ear infections, says Hodges, “can easily be treated medically, with far less trauma than cropping.” If the AKC is so worried about ear infections, asks Hodges, “then why does it forbid cropping as a breed standard for cocker spaniels, which have the highest number of ear infections?” AKC breed standards also dictate against cropping the ears of bloodhounds, basset hounds, and beagles, all of which have floppy ears. The AKC argument is further spurious, says Hodges, “because breed standards dictate the cropping of breeds that have only rare instances of ear infection”.

In a lame attempt to try to relate docking and cropping to patriotism, the AKC issued an official statement in February 2009: “These breed characteristics are procedures performed to insure the safety of dogs that on a daily basis perform heroic roles with Homeland Security, serve in the US Military and at Police Departments protecting tens of thousands of communities throughout our nation as well as competing in the field. Mislabelling these procedures as ‘cosmetic’ is a severe mischaracterisation that connotes a lack of respect and knowledge of history and the function of purebred dogs.”