Plus-Hex CLINICAL and docked tails because these features are mentioned in breed standards [ 38 ]. This, therefore, is a social and competitive driver that supports the continued practice of ear cropping.
Global legislation
At the time of writing, in Afghanistan, Bolivia, Chile, Egypt, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nepal, Panama and Sri Lanka, there were no limitations on performing ear cropping in dogs [ 1 ]. In some territories, such as Puerto Rico [ 15 ] and Mexico [ 39 ], the surgical procedure could be performed legally, but only in specific regions and under certain circumstances.
Within Europe, a treaty, the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals( 1987), aims to promote the welfare of pet animals and ensure minimum standards for their treatment and protection [ 40 ]. Article 10 of the treaty, focusing on surgical operations, prohibits any surgical operations that are for the purpose of modifying the appearance of an animal or for non-curative purposes; such procedures include ear cropping, tail docking, devocalisation, declawing and defanging [ 40 ]. Countries that have signed and ratified the treaty include Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and Türkiye [ 40 ]. However, in Türkiye, ear cropping and tail docking are still performed by some VSs and breeders, even though these procedures are illegal [ 41 ].
Additionally, countries can exempt themselves from specific paragraphs of the treaty. For example, Portugal and Germany have signed and ratified the treaty but permit tail docking to continue [ 40 ]. Spain had signed the treaty in 2015 and ratified it in 2017, but it only became legally enforced and applied in 2018 [ 42 ]. Spain further introduced a Protection of Animals Rights Law in 2023, which puts an obligation on owners to ensure animal wellbeing, appropriate education and living spaces and prohibits surgical interventions( unless medically indicated or beneficial to the individual animal) [ 42 ].
Legislation concerning animal health and welfare addresses non-therapeutic surgical procedures, with some countries or regions implementing their own specific regulations. However, this variation can create confusion and expose loopholes, enabling practices such as ear cropping to persist. For example, as mentioned earlier in this article, ear cropping is illegal under the Animal Welfare Act( 2006) in England and Wales, the Animal Welfare( Scotland) Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act( Northern Ireland) 2011. Nonetheless, it remains legal to import or sell dogs that have been ear cropped abroad, and there is no specific offence in England, Wales and Scotland relating to sending a dog overseas to undergo the procedure [ 9 ].
Public awareness
Public awareness about the welfare issues surrounding ear cropping is growing. In 2021, the # CuttheCrop and # FlopNotCrop campaign run by the FOAL group and its contributors gained over 100,000 signatures, which allowed it to be put before the Petitions Committee to be considered for debate in Parliament [ 28 ]. This shows there is a desire in the UK to prevent ear cropping.
In addition, a study carried out by Johnson [ 43 ] looked at how owners integrated their pets into the home and how they viewed their cat or dog within their social and kinship bonds, as well as addressing petkeeping and welfare issues in Canada. This study was conducted through interviews and identified that many of the participants were against ear cropping, the main reason being because they thought it was‘ cruel’ and unnecessary.
However, in a study by Mills et al. [ 20 ] investigating awareness and perceptions of tail docking and cropped ears in dogs in the USA, 42 % of participants were not aware that cropped ears and docked tails were achieved by surgical procedures and believed they were the result of genetic variation in some breeds of dog. This indicates that there is still a lack of awareness regarding ear cropping being a surgical procedure. Participants lived in areas where ear cropping was legal, so their lack of awareness may be because they commonly saw dogs with cropped ears and believed this to be normal.
Social media can play a role in public awareness of ear cropping through prevention campaigns such as # CuttheCrop or # FlopNotCrop; however, it can also promote the procedure. Celebrity endorsement on social media, as well as foreign social media and advertisements using dogs with cropped ears, are suggested to be the main drivers in supporting and increasing the trend for the procedure [ 44 ].
Examples of celebrities owning dogs with cropped ears are Marcus Rashford, Jack Fincham and Leigh-Anne Pinnock. In some cases, celebrities have since returned their dog; an example of this was Joey Essex, who received social media backlash when he posted a photo of his newly bought dobermann puppy with cropped ears in 2022 [ 45 ].
Social media may also help people to promote and acquire dogs with cropped ears. A study conducted by Norris et al. [ 46 ], which looked at the population of dogs with cropped ears in the UK from Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network( SAVSNET) data, identified one owner who purchased their dog with cropped ears for a considerable sum via social media. The use of social media to sell puppies is now increasingly common and is a growing concern for animal welfare campaigners; the RSPCA has estimated that 30 % of puppies are sold via the internet [ 47 ].
Volume 41( 1) • February 2026
23