Pro Ear Cropping Essay

Modifications to companion animals is both a very popular and very controversial topic in the animal owner and animal lover community. Animal modification, or ‘utility surgeries’ (Dol, 1999), are defined as a type of “physical interference that may take place with the purpose of adapting the animal to the owner’s wishes” (Dol, 1999). In many regions across the world, pet owners and activists are working towards laws that prevent these procedures from being performed. Some critics claim that certain modifications, like ear cropping (a surgical method where a portion of a dog’s ear is cut off), are in favor of the animal’s health and well-being, while others disagree with this belief. Those who are against the tempering of animals by ear cropping,
They defend the operation by explaining that it is a “surgical procedure for which a veterinary-medical necessity exists” (Dol, 1999) and is used to repair an animal’s deformed ears (improve the animal’s aesthetic) and keep the integrity of that animal’s breed (breeds in which the animal's ear are always cropped), which aides in the continuation of that breed’s cosmetic lineage. Despite the beliefs of those who are pro ear cropping, if there were to be a law stating that it is legal for an owner to have an otoplasty surgery conducted on their pet, there would be a lot of backlash. The negative reactions and actions of this law would specifically come from animal rights groups, as well as pet owners and pet lovers. This would be centered around the belief that the surgeries carried out on animals, for the benefit of the owner, is disturbing. This retaliation may transpire in the form of protests, strikes (specifically, the closing down of veterinary practices due to the lack of customers), and the development of numerous court cases. Establishing a law in favor of ear cropping would not be a good action to take and would yield many negative