American Vogue faced sharp criticism from animal-rights advocates after publishing a fashion shoot that featured Irina Shayk posing with a Doberman whose ears appeared cropped. The controversy was reported by the Daily Mail.
Even though ear cropping of dogs is illegal in the United Kingdom, the editorial appeared in the American edition of Vogue, prompting activists to demand an apology for what they describe as promoting animal cruelty.
An activist remarked that it is irresponsible to encourage audiences to buy animals groomed in ways that cause them pain, noting that the UK bans ear cropping except for medical reasons. The statement was shared with PETA via the Daily Mail report.
A spokesperson for the organization emphasized the expectation that Vogue acknowledge the misstep and communicate with readers about the issue.
PETA urged Vogue to address readers directly about the misconduct, offer a formal apology, and explain to audiences that dogs use their ears to express themselves, convey information, and balance. The group described this as a critical moment to educate the public about animal welfare.
The organization also commented on the broader practice of using dogs as fashion accents, urging brands and editors to consider the ethical implications and the potential harm to animals when selecting imagery for campaigns and magazines.
Several advocates voiced concern that fashion media should model responsible storytelling about animals, prioritizing welfare over sensational aesthetics. They argued that readers deserve transparent conversations about why certain grooming practices are controversial and how editors decide what counts as compelling imagery without compromising animal well-being. Critics stressed that media platforms have influence and a duty to avoid normalizing procedures that inflict pain or discomfort on animals, especially when such visuals can normalize harmful traditions. Audience reactions highlighted the importance of humane alternatives in fashion shoots, including the use of naturally featured animals, trained professionals, and ethical styling that respects animal welfare guidelines. The broader call is for editorial teams to balance bold fashion with compassion, ensuring that the portrayal of animals aligns with contemporary welfare standards and cultural expectations across North America and beyond. This case underscores the ongoing debate over representation, responsibility, and the responsibilities that come with global reach in fashion journalism. The response from readers and advocates alike indicates a desire for accountability and constructive dialogue about how animals are treated in the creative industry, a conversation that is likely to continue as editors evaluate future shoots and partnerships. The outcome may influence how magazines approach animal imagery and the standards they adopt to protect animal welfare in editorial work, advertising, and public perception. The discussion remains a touchstone for ongoing conversations about ethics in visual storytelling within the fashion world, inviting readers to consider more humane approaches while still enjoying high-impact aesthetics. In sum, the episode serves as a reminder that editorial choices carry real-world implications for animal welfare and public trust in media institutions. It invites ongoing scrutiny and dialogue among editors, readers, and advocacy groups who seek greater transparency and responsibility in fashion journalism.