Non-Therapeutic Procedures for Companion Animals

Share |

Brief Summary of Non-Therapeutic Procedures for Companion Animals
Asia Siev (2022)

There are several surgical procedures in common practice that do not have a medical benefit for the animal. These procedures are called non-therapeutic procedures and include tail docking, ear cropping, devocalization, and declawing. The first of these four procedures are typically referred to as "cosmetic surgeries" because they are used solely to alter the appearance of an animal. The latter two are known as "convenience surgeries" because they are used to inhibit an animal’s natural behaviors such as barking or scratching.

Tail docking and ear cropping are the most common cosmetic surgeries. These are medically unnecessary procedures used solely to alter the physical appearance of an animal. Tail docking involves removing the tail of a dog, either because the dog is a working dog or because it fits a breed standard (a description of the ideal characteristics of a breed of dog established by a kennel club). Ear cropping is the removal of parts of the ear to allow a naturally drooping ear to stand upright. Both of these procedures have supporters and opponents for a variety of complex reasons.

Convenience surgeries are those that inhibit an animal’s natural behaviors. They place animals at risk without imparting physical benefits like other surgical procedures would. These surgeries are not performed for an aesthetic reason like ear cropping and tail docking. Instead, these surgeries, are as the name implies, for the convenience of the owner and include procedures like devocalization in dogs and declawing in cats.

"Declawing" (or onychectomy in medical terms) is an invasive surgery that entails removing the claw, bone, nerve, joint capsule, collateral ligaments, and the extensor and flexor tendons from a cat. It is comparable to cutting off a human’s toes at the joint as opposed to clipping one’s toenails. Declawing can be banned at the municipal level and, in July of 2019, New York enacted the first statewide ban on elective declawing in cats.

No state law bans cosmetic surgeries on companion animals, but a few states require that they only be performed by veterinarians. More and more states have begun to address convenience surgeries in their laws.

Overview of Non-Therapeutic Procedures for Companion Animals
Asia Siev (2022)

Surgical procedures on animals can be performed for therapeutic, diagnostic, or preventative purposes. Surgery can also be performed for cosmetic purposes or to prevent behaviors humans find destructive or annoying. These types of surgeries are called medically unnecessary surgeries and include tail docking, ear cropping, devocalization, and declawing.

Tail docking and ear cropping are considered cosmetic surgeries - medically unnecessary procedures used solely to alter the physical appearance of an animal. Tail docking involves removing the tail of a dog, either because the dog is a working dog or because it fits a breed standard. Ear cropping is the removal of parts of the ear to allow a naturally drooping ear to stand upright. Both of these procedures have supporters and opponents for a variety of complex reasons.

Despite most veterinarians agreeing that tail docking and ear cropping serve no therapeutic benefits for dogs, breed registries still require the procedure for many dogs. Breed standards are set by American Kennel Club parent clubs, the national organization devoted to a particular breed. Some kennel clubs do not make allowances for undocked or uncropped dogs. Even though cosmetic procedures serve no purpose, no state law prohibits tail docking or ear cropping. State laws that regulate the practices typically require that they are performed by a licensed veterinarian when the dog is under general anesthesia.

Convenience surgeries are those that inhibit an animal’s natural behaviors and perpetuate avoidance of responsibilities inherent with living with the animal, at the expense of the animal. They place animals at risk without imparting physical benefits like other surgical procedures would. These surgeries are not performed for an aesthetic reason, like ear cropping and tail docking. Instead, these surgeries, are as the name implies, for the convenience of the owner and include procedures like devocalization in dogs and declawing in cats.

Non-therapeutic devocalization is banned in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) position on devocalization is that the surgery should only be performed by a licensed veterinarian as a final alternative to euthanasia after behavioral modification has failed.

"Declawing" (or onychectomy in medical terms) is an invasive surgery that entails removing the claw, bone, nerve, joint capsule, collateral ligaments, and the extensor and flexor tendons from a cat. It is comparable to cutting off a human’s toes at the joint as opposed to clipping one’s toenails. Declawing can be banned at the municipal level and, in July of 2019, New York enacted the first statewide ban on elective declawing in cats. Similar bans are being considered in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The AVMA updated its position in 2020 on declawing by discouraging declawing of domestic cats as an elective procedure.

Current trends point to more states banning non-therapeutic procedures in the United States at the state level. Public perceptions towards procedures like declawing and devocalization are changing, with more pet owners opposing the practice. As for practices like docking and ear cropping, there seems to be a movement to regulate the procedures to only be performed by a veterinarian.

Related articles

Cropping and Docking: A Discussion of the Controversy and the Role of Law in Preventing Unnecessary Cosmetic Surgery on Dogs,  Amy L. Broughton, Animal Legal & Historical Center (2003).

Related cases

Bell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. App. 1988). Johnny Wayne Bell was charged with knowingly and intentionally torturing an animal by amputating his ears. Bell amputated the ears of a Rhodesian Ridgeback cross puppy. Bell was found guilty by a jury and six months confinement at the county jail and a $500 fine. Bell appealed, on the grounds that the affiant who made the affidavit was not a credible person. The court disagreed, because the affidavit was subscribed and sworn before an Assistant County Attorney of Montgomery County. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed.

New York in Hammer v. American Kennel Club, 304 A.D.2d 74 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2003); Hammer v. American Kennel Club, 803 N.E.2d 766 (N.Y., 2003). Jon Hammer owned a pure-bred Brittany Spaniel with a natural, undocked tail. He contended that the breed standards set by defendant unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff by effectively precluding him from entering his dog in breed competitions, and thus, was arbitrary and capricious and also violated the primary anti-cruelty law (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353). As a result, plaintiff argued that the breed standard was null and void in derogation of the criminal law. The issue on the second appeal is whether Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 granted the plaintiff a private right of action to preclude defendants from using a standard that encourages him to dock his dog. The Court of Appeals found that it would be inconsistent with the applicable legislative scheme to imply a private right of action in plaintiff’s favor because the statute does not, either expressly or impliedly, incorporate a method for private citizens to obtain relief. Therefore, recognition of a private civil right of action is incompatible with the mechanisms chosen by the Legislature.

Related laws

Ear cropping and tail docking:

Connecticut (C. G. S. A. § 22-366), Maryland (Md. Code, Crim. Law, §§ 10-624), New Hampshire (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 466:40), New York (McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 365), and Pennsylvania (18 Pa.C.S. § 5542) all prohibit ear cropping unless performed by a licensed veterinarian when the dog is under general anesthesia.

Massachusetts does not have a general anesthesia requirement for ear cropping; it only requires that the procedure is performed by a licensed veterinarian.  Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, § 80A.
Illinois prohibits animal torture but makes an exception for the alteration of an animal done under the direction of a licensed veterinarian. 510 ILCS 70/3.03.

Maine prohibits mutilation of dogs. It defines "mutilate" as an act “to injure or disfigure by irreparably damaging body parts.” Mutilation does not include conduct performed by a licensed veterinarian. 7 M.R.S.A.§ 3907.

Washington prohibits cropping and tail docking of dogs older than seven days unless performed by a licensed veterinarian. RCW 16.52.095.

Devocalization/Debarking:

Non-therapeutic devocalization is banned in:

Declawing:

New York ban on cat declawing (eff. October 1, 2022): McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 381

Related Links

AVMA statement on Declawing of Domestic Cats: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/declawing-domestic-cats

Share |