debarking a dog

We may find the practice objectionable, but let us consider what we are saying when we say "it ought to be illegal". That means we believe that a person who does this ought to be stripped of his liberty and thrown in a cage. If he resists he should be shot. Does this sound like a reasonable or even a moral stance to take? Can't we campaign against this objectionable behavior without invoking violent and ham handed government action against its practitioners?

Google Voluntaryism.

Quote: bigfoot66

We may find the practice objectionable, but let us consider what we are saying when we say "it ought to be illegal". That means we believe that a person who does this ought to be stripped of his liberty and thrown in a cage. If he resists he should be shot. Does this sound like a reasonable or even a moral stance to take? Can't we campaign against this objectionable behavior without invoking violent and ham handed government action against its practitioners?

Google Voluntaryism.

I didn't google as requested, but as an "illegal" voter, I wasn't thinking we should throw them in jail. I don't imagine debarking is an easily performed job that could be done by a layman, so making it illegal, to me, would simply mean veterinarians could no longer perform it without facing repercussion, whether it's fine or loss of practicing priveleges.

Quote: Face

I didn't google as requested, but as an "illegal" voter, I wasn't thinking we should throw them in jail. I don't imagine debarking is an easily performed job that could be done by a layman, so making it illegal, to me, would simply mean veterinarians could no longer perform it without facing repercussion, whether it's fine or loss of practicing priveleges.

Fair enough. Consider though that fines are enforced by threats of jail time. Think "$500 or 5 days in Jail". You must, therefore, believe it is morally acceptable to jail someone for debarking if you feel it is morally acceptable to fine them. Do you agree with my analysis?

Quote: bigfoot66

Fair enough. Consider though that fines are enforced by threats of jail time. Think "$500 or 5 days in Jail". You must, therefore, believe it is morally acceptable to jail someone for debarking if you feel it is morally acceptable to fine them. Do you agree with my analysis?

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I would equate this issue with parking tickets. One receives a fine for breaking traffic law, and "threat of enforcement" is loss of driving priveleges, which is similar to what I suggested for debarking (fine and/or loss of practice). Under this system, jail time would only be given for repeated and blatant refusal to pay, which is more a punishment for disobeying the courts, not so much a punishment on the original crime.

To answer directly whether someone should be jail for debarking is tough. I do hate kneejerk laws, and have railed often here at WoV on the topic, but I'll admit that I'm at least leaning towards yes. I would say this opinion is heavily emotion based, without much thought on the consequences. I think, without someone here debating the issue and giving more opinions and information, that my "leaning towards yes" answer will continuously occilate back and forth around center, and my answer given would basically depend on my current mood.

Short answer - I dunno. I guess?

It's most certainly wrong and abusive.
However we abuse animals all the time, and the accepted practice in US is that only the most pointless and cruel forms of animals abuse are responded to by the law. That they are pets shouldn't make much difference in what limits are there to their treatment, and it's not something you'd hesitate to do to livestock or test animals. So while people doing it shouldn't keep pets in the first place, I'm OK with them not being prohibited from doing it, as otherwise it's likely they'd dump or kill the pet (something else we allow to be done at will, by the way).

When I first saw this I thought you were talking about the zappers that send small electrical pulses through the animal when the bark - I find these things horrible. I love animals, but the fundamental rights of ANY animal compared to ANY human are negligible. These animals of course have rights, but in order to supersede their owners' rights to do with their property as they see fit is something that can't be taken lightly. I might think MUCH less of you for using a zapper or taking out your dog's larynx, but it's your property to do with as you see fit (these things aren't nearly cruel enough for the government to get involved).

Except in Europe, where an international organization can force out duly elected prime ministers. Anything's game over there.

Leave the dogs alone. Debark the children.

Quote: ahiromu

When I first saw this I thought you were talking about the zappers that send small electrical pulses through the animal when the bark - I find these things horrible.

Lazy pet owners.

It's enough to discipline the dog when she barks at an inapropriate time. Those shock collars will keep them from barking at any time, which isn't good for the dog.

Quote:

I love animals, but the fundamental rights of ANY animal compared to ANY human are negligible.

It isn't so much a matter of rigths as a matter of what's right and proper. A pet is kept for companionship and enjoyment. If you don't like to have a dog or cat hang around with you, and won't play with them nor walk them and so on, then why do you want a pet for? And if you do enjoy your pet, then you want it to be happy. To me that means letting the pet do mostly what it likes with some necessary limits required by your living arrangements. That means the cat will elarn to use the litter box,a dn the dog will learn to ask to eb taken outside, for example. Begging at the table is a matter of personal choice. And many other things.

Quote: reno

Animal devocalization is a procedure in which a dog or cat's vocal cords are surgically removed to prevent the animal from barking or meowing. Massachusetts and New Jersey have banned the procedure, as has Britain and the European Union. Critics of the procedure say that it's cruel to prevent animals from communicating, and that scar tissues in the throat create breathing hazards.

Is it wrong? Should it be illegal?

If you are going to ask people for opinions on a topic, it would be helpful if you tried to give accurate information.

Debarking is a misnomer and the claim that a dog's vocal cords are removed in blatantly false. (Cats aren't debarked...ummm, cat's don't bark!)

Ignoring the fact that dogs don't have vocal cords (the correct term is vocal folds) and the bark softening procedure is a quick, simple and relatively safe procedure (in that any surgery using anesthesia carries certain inherent risks). The dog is anesthetized and the vet goes down the throat using a layrngoscope, which allows the vet to visualize the folds. Using a small biopsy punch, cautery tool or laser, the vet makes a small notch is one or both sides of the folds. The entire procedure from start to finish takes less than 15 minutes. There are very few complications and the side effects are quite rare. The result is a dog whose bark is softened or who has an altered "pitch".

Addressing the second statement that bark softening prevents a dog from communicating is anthropomorphism at its best (or worst?) Researchers of wild canids report that barking is extremely rare after adolescence and postulate that barking in our companion dogs is a result of domestication. A dog's main sense of communication is its sense of smell coupled with specific body postures and a series of yips and growls that bark softened dogs can still do.

Not all dogs respond to conventional training methods when it comes to barking. Certain breeds have a genetic predisposition to excessive vocalization. Having been involved in rescue for one of these "barky" breeds, I am appalled that anyone suggest making this procedure illegal. I have dealt with more than a dozen people who faced having to surrender their dog because of complaints from neighbors/landlords about the dog barking. When conventional training methods (which did not include electric show collars or citronella collars that spray a noxious substance in the dog's face) fail, having the option for bark softening has allowed these dogs to remain with the people who loved them.

Quote: TruthBeTold

Addressing the second statement that bark softening prevents a dog from communicating is anthropomorphism at its best (or worst?) .

Having lost my voice for 5 weeks due to a hot gas injury I was a down to a whisper sound, and I personally found communicating really frustrating. I'm wasn't familiar with the surgical aspect of this, but that bothered me the least of this whole thing.