debarking a dog

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?

Don't care about scar tissue or whatnot, it shouldn't be done regardless. Dogs are a social animal.

I can't even think of a reason to do this. Even purpose dogs, those used in war or for hunting, are trained to STFU until they're supposed to bark. Hell, even I at 8 years old taught my not-at-all-impressive dog to be quiet unless needed.

Do you know what the purpose of this is, reno? Probably an "owner preference" type of thing like declawing a cat, right?

Next thing you know we'll routinely be removing their sex organs.

Actually, though, I agree that it's probably unnecessarily cruel to removal vocal cords. While the blind, deaf and mute find ways to adapt, maybe you really should consider training or not getting the animal at all. Get a snake or something.

I see so many inept owners! So many times, they don't want the dog to be barking, they run out and start scolding the dog, but the dog has never been trained to respond or even understand what it is doing wrong. It just sounds to the dog like the owner is also coming outside to bark.

BTW don't use "free speech zone" when you don't really need to. It won't show up in the short list of a user's recent messages.

Quote: rxwine

Next thing you know we'll routinely be removing their sex organs.

That's a good point. Why can't cats and dogs simply get a vasectomy and tubal ligation? I've never sterilized any of my pets and don't ever intend to.

When I owned a cat, I didn't have her declawed, either. Cats need their claws. You just teach her to scratch in only one or two areas. Ideally that would have been the scratching post. Instead she showed a preference for an old stool and a bathroom rug. Over the years she reduced both to shreds, but left the carpets, rugs, curtains and other furniture alone.

Removing the vocal cords is cruel and unecessary. Both dogs and cats are social animals which make use of sound in order to communicate. If barking or mewoing annoys you, don't get a pet. My last dog liked to bark at passing strangers from her sunning areas in the front yard. I let her do that becasue it wasn't a problem. Inside the house she rarely ever barked.

The Basenji is a dog that is barkless. It yodels and whimpers. A very interesting dog with a curly tail. Had one growing up. Used by pharoahs in Ancient English to hunt.

Quote: Nareed

That's a good point. Why can't cats and dogs simply get a vasectomy and tubal ligation?

Because a vasectomy would solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, but that's only half the reason people get cats/dogs neutered. The other advantage of removing the testicles is that it reduces aggressiveness in dogs, and territorial peeing in cats. Vasectomies have no affect on behavior.

Quote: reno

Because a vasectomy would solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, but that's only half the reason people get cats/dogs neutered. The other advantage of removing the testicles is that it reduces aggressiveness in dogs, and territorial peeing in cats. Vasectomies have no affect on behavior.

Plus who wants to "diaper" their female pet during "that time of the month" (heat). Neutering dogs also stops them from humping your leg.

Quote: reno

Because a vasectomy would solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, but that's only half the reason people get cats/dogs neutered. The other advantage of removing the testicles is that it reduces aggressiveness in dogs, and territorial peeing in cats. Vasectomies have no affect on behavior.

Then you might be better off with a fish or a hamster...

Really, dogs and cats can learn to live in a civilized setting (otherwise we wouldn't have kept them around this long, would we?) To be fair, though, I've neve had a male dog. Females are easier to house-break, after all. Just the same, I did have one who was quite agressive. It's funny, considering she was a toy poodle. So her agressiveness was cute, really, rather than intimidating or annoying. And much of it was for show. If she really got mad, she would leave the room. I'd let her chase me off once in a while, just to humor her :)

But I've known people who owned male dogs and I've seen their dogs. Properly trained, they're not agressive to the point that you need to maim them to keep them in line; of course with a few exceptions.

I think Michael Vick used to do something like this.

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.

Quote: rxwine

I'm wasn't familiar with the surgical aspect of this, but that bothered me the least of this whole thing.

Exactly. I didn't figure the vet opens up the dog with a dirty meat cleaver and rips the vocal folds with his bare hands. But that's beside the point. It's like saying a kidnaper gives you lydocaine before snapping off your finger. I'm sure you wouldn't feel appreciative of his consideration.

Really, people ought to understand that even though pets are domesticated they remain animals. They can learn to behave, to some extent, but overall it's better to channel their natural behaviors to something or somewhere you find unobjectionable; and some things you simply need to put up with. Like having the cat pick one piece of furniture to ruin, or letting the dog bark at passing strangers.

As it is we do inflict some necessary pain and anguish to our pets giving them basic medical care. No dog enjoys getting vaccinated, for example, but they'd enjoy rabies even less.

Oh my gosh! Just joined and I'm subjected to this horror! Seriously, I never had a kid and only recently got a little yorkipoo and I tell her 100 times a day how much I love her and I mean it every time, and I couldn't imagine ever taking away her voice. Torture! A crime! A heinous crime! Can't even think about it.
Some doggies and other animals have no home tonight in the cold. They all need our love.
Me and my dog bark together! It's fun and she loves it! We just yelp and howl and it's a great source of entertainment for both of us! What goes around comes around! This is really disturbing to me to even think about doing such a thing.

Dogs have no idea that they have been debarked. Barking is purely a mechanical function. In the dogs mind (they really don't have one) they are barking. No, my dogs are not chained up outside.

please no anthropomorphism.....

I wouldn't do it. All that work just to prevent the dog from being a little more annoying? Not worth it at all.

I also won't declaw a cat. I will adopt a cat that's already declawed, and I have two that are (and one that's not) but I won't do it myself. My one cat who's not declawed will let me trim his claws, so there's no need to declaw.

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?

surgically removing an animals voice box or declawing an animal is So BARBARIC !!!!!
Lets do this to people as well.
Remember dogs are mans best friend !!
My gosh people are we for real !?
The fact is if the bark of a canine is not for you then you should not have a canine of any type. If a felines claws irritate you then you should not have any felines. No one forces this upon you, you have the right to choose NOT to have any animals. Therefore you should not force devoicing or declawing up on any being on earth.

My brother's first wife had 4 dogs, all debarked, when they married. She insisted his hound have it done as well, so he did (the 5 dogs had lived together for about 2 years at this point, so the behavior change was not due to being part of a forced pack). The dog (Murphy the 1st; mine is Murphy the 2nd), was a large yellow hound with huge personality, and

1. definitely knew he had lost his voice
2. went into a personality change directly after, was sad and frustrated the rest of his life
3. stopped playing, gave up trying to give notice of strangers, just slogged around depressed.

No anthropomorphism involved, just observation, and that example was enough for me. I've had great success in training dogs not to bark except when I think it's acceptable to do it (like strangers at the door/in the yard), so I've never needed to anyway, but wouldn't in any case.

Likewise on de-clawing cats. I'm not a cat person, but a cat needs claws for both flight and flight situations, and unless it NEVER goes outside, it's unfair to the cat. Even inside it's still not palatable to do that to the cat, but since I don't keep them, I don't have much to say about it.