Depriving a dog of their freedom to speak by "debarking" them is legal?

[Turborama]

Last edited Fri Oct 26, 2012, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I honestly thought at 1st glance of the title this was about something going on in somewhere like China or Indonesia where there are no animal welfare laws, not the US.

Dog Debarking Policy At AVMA Raises Activists' Howls Of Protest


Karen Mahmud, 43, of Long Island, N.Y., holds her long-haired Chihuahua, Lola, who barks in a squeaky whisper after surgeons cut the dog's vocal cords.

By JoNel Aleccia, NBC News

When Porter, a 123-pound black Newfoundland, attempts to bark, it comes out as a raspy cough. When Lola, a 6-pound long-haired Chihuahua, tries, she emits only a whispery squeak.

Both dogs have been “devocalized," or surgically muffled, using a controversial procedure regarded as either barbaric mutilation by lazy pet owners -- or as the last resort of animal lovers desperate to keep their furry companions.

Porter’s owner, Sue Perry, a 58-year-old Connecticut bookkeeper, and Lola’s owner, Karen Mahmud, a 43-year-old New York nutrition blogger, fall squarely into the first camp. They’re part of the Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets, an activist group that helped get the practice known as “debarking” or "devoicing" outlawed in Massachusetts two years ago. Now they have set their sights on the American Veterinary Medical Association. “I was just horrified by this,” said Perry, who adopted Porter from a rescue agency five years ago. “When he tried to bark, I was, like, ‘What the heck?’”

Though they’ve never met in person, the two women have joined to launch an online petition demanding that the AVMA, the nation’s leading group of veterinarians, condemn devocalization when the organization reviews its policy on the procedure later this year. So far, more than 125,000 people have signed onto their cause.

More: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/25/14677222-dog-debarking-policy-at-avma-raises-activists-howls-of-protest?lite

Online petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-veterinarians-devocalization-is-mutilation

(NOTE: Due to a typo in the subject line I just noticed, and people getting confused by the wording I used, the subject line has now been altered. For the original please click on the "view edits" link to see it.)

[bluestateguy]

1. Never mind freedom of speech, it's just pure animal cruelty

If a dog's barking inconveniences someone, that person should get a goldfish instead.

[AngryOldDem]

3. +1

I often wonder why some people have dogs in the first place, as well.

[yellowcanine]

51. Agree. I have similar issues with declawing cats.

If you have to declaw your cat, maybe you should not have a cat. A cat's claws and a dog's bark are important components of what makes them a cat or a dog.

[Scootaloo]

2. Docking, cropping, declawing, de-barking...

Some pet owners can't understand that their pet is not a possession.

[scheming daemons]

7. actually, legally, a pet IS a posession

[Scootaloo]

9. Pedantry

Law does not mirror ethics.

[Prophet 451]

37. Sure but that's just for legal convienience n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Not to mention cutting their nuts off.

Oh, wait, that doesn't count.

[Scootaloo]

67. Nor does the removal of the uterus, apparently.

It does get a little fuzzy on this - The surgeries I mentioned are all purely aesthetic, or in the case of declawing, 100% stupidity. Sterilization prevents population growth, which has pretty obvious benefits. Yes, it's still mutilation of the animal, and yes, there's probably a better way to do it than slicing and dicing. But it does have a practical benefit, compared to "I sliced up my doberman's ears so that he looks scary!"

[Warren DeMontague]

73. People who keep dogs for intimidation purposes suck, you'll get no argument from me there.

It's a messed up psychology.

I just think it's a little funny to be anthropomorphizing the dog like "He wouldn't want to have his voice taken away!" ...Yeah, and if you asked him, he really wouldn't want to have his nuts taken away, either.

[Scootaloo]

77. Yeah, the "freedom of speech" thing was silly...

But to play devil's advocate, if we can give a cyst like Ann Coulter the right, I don't see why it'd be a problem for a canine

[TorchTheWitch]

69. they're both healthy and happier without them

With the huge over-abundance of unwanted dogs and cats, they should be neutered if they won't be used for breeding purposes, and only healthy animals that have good health checks and health history should be used for breeding and only by those people that have the knowledge and experience to know what they're doing. Removing the testicles is healthier for the animal, and goes a long way in eliminately unwanted or aggressive behavior. It's more cruel to not neuter male dogs or cats when they aren't permitted to mate, and they shouldn't be permitted to indiscriminately mate. Not wanting to remove a dog or cat's testicles because of some irrational idea that it "un-man's" them somehow is just foolishness.

I also notice that you only mentioned neutering male animals. Pretty much a dead give-away that objection to sterilization is only objectionable for males and not females. If you believe "cutting their nuts off" is somehow inhumane, why is there no objection to "cutting out their uterus"? What, an animal's uterus seriously rather than sarcastically "doesn't count"? What seriously shouldn't count is not neutering male animals when it improves their health and well-being because of such over-emotional attachment to your own "nuts" that it extends to other non-human male animals that have the far better sense to not extend any emotional attachment to their own or anyone else's "nuts".

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Same thing. Cutting the nuts off just works better in a sentence.

So, please.... spare me the psychoanalyzing.

I'm not saying it's not wise to neuter OR spay your pets- what I *am* saying is that "Doggie would object to you taking away his 1st amendment right to bark".. Okay, fine, but doggie would also probably object to having his OR her reproductive system jimmied with.

Also, if you don't think some dogs have an over-attachment to other animals' (including humans) "nuts", you've never had one uncomfortably and enthusiastically jam its face into your crotch upon greeting you.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. While I agree it is disgusting, dogs do not have freedom of speech.

We do not recognize other animals as having the rights of humans. Perhaps we should, bUt that would put meat eaters in a peculiar position.

[Turborama]

10. Personally, I think anyone who believes in free speech is being knowingly cruel to deny it to a dog

Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's ethically right to do it.

[redgreenandblue]

16. If we give right to animals, we would have to all become vegans.

Eating meat would be murder. Using animals for labor would be slavery.

I'm not saying we shouldn't give animals right, but let's be clear about what this point of view entails.

[Turborama]

23. Domestic animals do have rights.

And there are exisiting laws against cruelty. Letting dogs keep their bark should be on that list, IMHO.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. I'm sorry but when we eat domestic animals they do not have rights.

Perhaps you can define a distinction between a pig and a dog with respect to rights, but I cannot. I think both ought to have rights to live liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including not being slaughtered for food or debarked, but I cannot agree that a dog has elevated rights over a pig.

[pintobean]

33. Some people want to deny the freedom of speech

of my leaf blower.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018218880

[reformist2]

5. If you don't want to hear barking, don't get a dog.

That's one of the reasons I don't have one.

[LovePeacock]

12. People are too stupid to understand that concept. They could just buy a lawn ornament,

but they'd rather get a dog and lock the thing up on a chain in their backyard for the next fifteen years.

Don't ask them why they got the dog in the first place. It's their freedumb, and people are dumb.

[wickerwoman]

55. It's a question of consideration for the neighbors as well though.

In some cases where dogs bark incessantly and disturb their neighbors, animal services can be called and in less progressive areas they sometimes pose owners with the choice to debark or have the animal removed.

[bklyncowgirl]

6. I have mixed feelings about this. Sometimes this could be the best of several bad options.

Imagine you own a dog which you love. You live and work in an urban area. Your neighbors are close. Really close. The dog barks--alot. Your neighbors are suing you. You've tried every training method in the book but the mutt won't stop yapping and your landlord is threatening you with eviction.

You have three choices, get rid of the dog, move or have the dog debarked.

Getting rid of the dog is not an option for you. You love your dog. Moving could work--if your new neighbors are deaf. The third option might, in this case, be the best.

[LovePeacock]

13. If you loved the dog, you wouldn't debark them. Getting rid of them would be more humane.

[magical thyme]

42. "getting rid of them" is not necessarily more humane.

Once you set an animal onto the path of "getting rid of them," too often it turns into a downhill slide that ends in euthanasia or worse.

[bklyncowgirl]

53. How do you get rid of a dog with behavior problems?

Unless you have a friend in the country who'll take it, the options are pretty bleak. If you don't you end up giving the dog to the local pound, er pardon me, animal shelter. Maybe, in a good shelter or rescue program the dog might be able to get the training and behavior modification it needs in order to live in human society and be adopted to a good home out but in many cases the animal will end up being euthanized.

I'm not defending the practice for all cases of excessively barking dogs. Firm, consistent training and behavior modification should be exhausted first as well as removal to a more suitable home.

[riderinthestorm]

44. That's what happened to my sister. Got divorced, moved into a condo, and the dog barked all the time

because she was sensitive to the movements of the people and animals in the other condos and around the place.

She was always high strung, very energetic, and at her suburban house she had a huge fenced yard with two teenage boys to romp with her daily. The boys elected to stay with their dad who would NOT take the dog. So my sister was left with a large, nervous shepherd cross who barked ALL the time.

The condo association gave her an ultimatum - debark her or get her out. She had a month to take action.

She tried intensive training. She hired dog walkers to get the dog out more. She begged her ex to take the dog (she lives in CA and I'm in IL or I would have taken her).

She finally gave her up.

She's still devastated about it and agonizes to this day whether she should have just gotten her debarked since her dog died at the shelter within 6 weeks from bloat. She was only 6 years old.

[bklyncowgirl]

59. That's what I'm saying. Sometimes this may be the best solution.

I'm not saying it's a good solution but it may be the best of alot of bad solutions. It sounds like your sister did the best she could. In the best of all possible worlds no dog would ever have to be debarked but we do not live in the best of all possible worlds.

[scheming daemons]

8. *facepalm* ..... animals are not covered by the bill of rights

And articles like this are why liberals are often ridiculed and marginalized.

[LovePeacock]

14. Yes. Compassion is the reason why liberals are ridiculed. We know. But I don't mind it.

[COLGATE4]

15. K&R!!! First touch of sanity in an otherwise

incredible discussion.

[Turborama]

17. That article is why liberals are ridiculed and marginalized?

I can't see any mention of their politics anywhere in there.

And even if they announced their politics as being Liberal in the article, why would that result in Liberals being ridiculed? They are campainging to stop an activity which they (and I) believe to be cruel. Whoever's going to ridicule and marginalize them for doing that deserves to be ignored, anyway.

[forestpath]

21. Then ridicule and marginalize me. I'll still say de-barking dogs is cruel and sadistic.

[smokey nj]

28. *facepalm*....the article doesn't say that animals are covered by the bill of rights.

[cleanhippie]

38. *facepalm*....Freedom of Speech is a right only enumerated in the Constitution.

So when the article says a dog's "freedom of speech" is being taken away, it IS saying animals (dogs) are covered by the BoR.

[Turborama]

45. *FACEDESK* The article didn't say it

I did.


FYI freedom of speech are 3 words which aren't confined to the Comstitution. I could have said "freedom to speak" and it would have meant the same thing.

[cleanhippie]

47. *facepunch*....You're right, YOU SAID IT.

Words have meaning, and "Freedom of Speech" implies a Constituional right, not "freedom to speak", especially in this case because DOGS BARK. What you posted was flamebait. Did you get the responses you were hoping for?

[Turborama]

52. LOL, that's a good one

Blaming my play on words for your reading comprehension fail. This is not LBN and, within reason, we can say what we like in the subject lines. How unfortunate that you only got as far as the subject line and jumped straight in with the flame thrower thinking: "the article says a dog's "freedom of speech" is being taken away, it IS saying animals (dogs) are covered by the BoR".


Most replies seem to be generating an interesting debate (internal and external) on the ethics of this, so yes I am getting the responses I was hoping for. It's kind of refreshing to give the brain a break sometimes from all the stresses of the campaign.

I like the "Facepunch" motivational card, too. Never seen it before and it made me LOL, thanks.

[cleanhippie]

79. There was no need to go past your headline. It was absurd.

Glad you liked the facepunch. Took a bit to come up with something to top facedesk, which was really awesome.

[smokey nj]

71. Why do you think this is flamebait?

[cleanhippie]

80. Huh? I just explained in my last post, which you just replied to, why.

It's all right there, just read it. Its really clear.

[smokey nj]

82. I'm talking about the topic, not what was written in the subject line. Why would THAT be flamebait?

[cleanhippie]

84. Unsure of what you are asking, as what I was talking about is quite clear.

My response to the OP was to his/her flamebait headline.

[smokey nj]

85. So you don't have an opinion on the article, you just decided to take the bait? If you think a

thread is flamebait, why not just hide the thread and deprive the author of the flame fest he wants? I have an interest in the welfare of companion animals, so I disregarded the obvious hyperbole in the subject line and read the article to which the OP links - that's how I knew it didn't mention anything at all about dogs having freedom of speech.

[cleanhippie]

87. Is there a particular reason that you feel the need to attack me personally?

Have we had a run-in before or something that you feel the need to seek payback or what? At this point, to me, you just sound petty.

[smokey nj]

88. I'm not attacking you personally. I enjoy your posts in the Atheists/Agnostics and Religion group.

I have absolutely nothing against you. Actually, you sort of attacked me up-thread when I pointed out to scheming demons that the OP's subject line had nothing to do with the article. I guess I'm asking in a ham-handed way, I admit and I apologize because it wasn't my intent, why get hung up on something like a silly subject line in a thread about a relatively uncontroversial topic?

[cleanhippie]

89. I agree. And if you feel I attacked you up-thread, I apologise.

Lets move on.

[smokey nj]

92. Indeed!

[smokey nj]

70. The article doesn't say that a dog's freedom of speech is being taken away.

The author of the OP used a bit of hyperbole to draw attention to the article.

[gollygee]

11. Who would do this?

I'm not even a dog person but WHAT? Who would do that to any animal? That's horribly cruel.

[Blue_Tires]

58. I've heard urban legends that highly sensitive military bases use barkless German Shepherds

so intruders don't know about them until it's too late...

[xchrom]

18. 1 ofthe reasons I have a dog(s) is because they bark. Nt

[treestar]

40. True I was going to make a crack about the value of dog speech

But then realized it does have some meaning, mostly to the human. What's a watch dog for? It would have to be able to bark.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. Dogs have free speech?

I agree that it is cruel and I would never do it to my own dog (no matter how much he tempts me to do it) or encourage anyone else to do it.

But free speech?

[Turborama]

24. Their freedom to "speak" is being legally taken away from them

Glad to hear you wouldn't do it to your dog.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

27. I guess technically you are right.

Even though it sounds as though you are inferring they have constitutional rights.

But no, I wouldn't dream of doing it to my dog. Although I have fantasized at times--he's got some weird quirk where he will go absolutely crazy whenever I shake a plastic garbage bag. It's the damndest thing.

[Revolutionary Girl]

20. As an animal lover, this...sickens me.

This will join all the other ways humans already mutilate their animals. Slicing off tails, shredding ears, cutting out claws, nevermind the freakshow of pet breeding: dogs that can barely breathe through their truncated sinuses, cats without the warmth, cushion and protection of the fur nature intended them to have...

I'd say "don't get me started", but it seems I already have.

[dems_rightnow]

22. Next the bastards will try involuntary sterilization.

Call your congressman.

[WinkyDink]

26. REALLY not the same thing. Humans get sterilized, too; very few get their vocal cords cut.

I dare say.

[treestar]

41. This might be a good thing

Rush Limbaugh's or Ann Coulter's are more annoying than most dog barks.

Kidding of course.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Yes, humans are getting *neutered* left and right, without their consent

It makes them much more manageable.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. +1 n/t

[WinkyDink]

25. Anthropomorphizng is stupid. It's enough to say: Don't mutilate a dog!

[LeftinOH]

29. I *hate* the sound of barking dogs; don't have one, and certainly don't

think they should be surgically altered to prevent them from barking. Owners are responsible for keeping their property quiet -within reason. All night long yelping and howling where neighbors can hear it is the owner's fault, IMO.

[Berserker]

30. It's not about

"you" the dog owner, it's about owning a dog and all it does is bark. Think about your neighbors just maybe they don't enjoy having to listen to that fucking barking every time your dog hits fresh air. There are barking laws in some cities to try and stop this.

[99Forever]

31. This is nothing short of cruelty and mutalization.

Bad owners are the real issue, not dogs doing that which they do naturally. Shame on any vet that would do this.

Please click the link and sign the petition.

[NCTraveler]

32. Freedom of Speech. That's Hilarious.

Cruel and abusive, yes. Should it be against the law, yes.

[mmonk]

34. We should debark Fox News instead.

[Prophet 451]

35. OMS, this is a thing?!?

I'd never heard of this before and had only come across one mute dog (which had lost it's voice to cancer). This is horrible.

[MadHound]

36. It is legal to do many cruel and inhumane things to your dog,

Debark, declaw, cut off part of the ears or tail, all of this is legal to do, but generally not good for the dog, or downright harmful to them. Same with cats.

Humans are cruel creatures.

And the sad thing is, you are defeating the purpose, at least in part, of having a dog. A living security alarm.

[Nevernose]

39. We seriously considered it with one of our dogs

But I dismissed it as being too cruel.

She just barks all night long. Not every night, but often enough that it was seriously disturbing our life. Imagine how tired parents are when they have a newborn that cries all night. Now make that newborn cry all night for four or five years.

This dog is a little crazy. We even know when it's going to be an extra bad night, because she gets the Crazy Eyes. Apparently she's hunting witches. She barks at an empty spot on the wall, at the toilet, at a TV that's off, at the ceiling fan, at the oven. All goddamned night long.

Rather than surgically remove her vocal chords, we just bought her a bark collar. It makes an annoying vibration whenever she barks. Granted, eventually we had to buy the one that's sized for bull moose (she weighs 13 pounds), but after two weeks all we have to do is put it on right before bed time -- without the batteries in it.

We're happier that we get to sleep all night long; she's happier that we're not mad at her. No dogs had to be surgically altered to bend them to my will.

[MADem]

50. Go to the drugstore and buy some Sam-E.

Seriously--if it's a small dog, get the 200s. Your dog sounds like she has anxiety issues. Give it a try, it won't hurt and it will help her liver function.

[Nevernose]

64. Good call on the anxiety issues

When I first met my wife, she had to go out of town for an emergency. I said I'd watch her dogs, she brought them and their cage over, and in my know-it-all-ness I refused to lock them up while I was at work. One major fit of separation anxiety and an entire couch later, I put them in the cage whenever we go out. Turns out they prefer it.

Also, as it turns out, the way I treated her dogs (now our dogs) is one of the reasons she married me -- that and I was the first straight, single man that had stairs so his chihuahua could get in bed at night. The anxiety dog, by the way, had never really bonded with a human until I came along. She's sitting on my lap right now, and probably will be until I go to work on Monday.

I don't know what Sam-E is, or what section I should look in.

[MADem]

72. It's a supplement--you can find it in health food stores, but big box drug stores sell it too.

http://www.cvs.com/search/_/N-0?searchTerm=sam-e+200&pt=global

SAMe was first discovered in 1953 by a researcher named Cantoni. It is formed in the body from methionine and adenosine triphosphate in a reaction catalyzed by methionine adenosyltransferase. SAMe functions as a primary methyl group donor in a variety of reactions in the body. After donating a methyl group, SAMe is converted to S-adenosyl-homocysteine.

SAMe is used for psychiatric illnesses, infertility, liver concerns, premenstrual disorders and musculoskeletal disorders, among others.

SAMe has been studied extensively in the treatment of osteoarthritis and depression. Many trials provide evidence that SAMe reduces the pain associated with osteoarthritis and is well tolerated in this patient population. Some evidence is available for the use of SAMe for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy although additional study is needed in this area. Anti-inflammatory and analgesic (pain relieving) activity has also been attributed to SAMe.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/same/NS_patient-same

I have an old rescue dog with a bum liver. She's a bit high strung, too--it does the trick for her. You have to give it on an empty stomach and wait at least an hour before feeding.

There's a couple of veterinary meds that contain the ingredient--one is called denosyl and the other denamarin (that also has milk thistle). They're a bit pricier than the stuff you can get at the pharmacy, but those also come in a chewable version.

[magical thyme]

43. As a dog lover, I can't take sides on this

I'm not sure how dogs feel about being "de-barked." We may be horrified or dismayed by the sound of their voice after the procedure, but that doesn't mean they are bothered by it. Dogs and other animals overcome many serious disabilities with really good attitudes and general happiness.

I haven't met any de-barked dogs, so I don't have the experience of seeing how well adjusted and happy they are. But I suspect they do not live in misery or discomfort as a result. Rather the opposite. They go on with their lives and their people much as before.

I have 2 rescue dogs who are well-trained so barking is not an issue. My neighbor has a couple yappy dogs, but we are in the country and personally I consider them a great alarm. Nobody comes within about 4-600 feet of *either* of our houses without an alarm going off.

But if I lived in close quarters, I can understand how the yappiness could become a problem even to a dog-lover like me.

And to those who say they should "get rid of the dog," well, that does not bode well for that dog's future life or happiness. While there are some happy endings, the fact is that is too often the first step down a slide to the bottom of the heap, where euthanasia becomes the humane way out.

[renate]

46. I agree

I doubt the dogs are distressed by it--to them, suddenly being unable to make noise is just going to seem like one of those things that happen. I read a sweet story by James Herriott about a dog who went blind; his owner was practically suicidal over it but the dog was happy as a clam because he had no idea it wasn't supposed to be that way.

And as someone who lives near people with dogs, I think other people's rights to not be driven out of their minds by a yapping dog need to be considered. We had a neighbor who left their barking dog outside ALL DAY and the dog made everybody in the neighborhood miserable. And getting rid of the dog would have been much more cruel than debarking, I think.

[joeybee12]

76. Wow, major unrec on your post...

Educate yourself before making such a blanket comment.

[riderinthestorm]

65. Its obvious to me that dogs primarily communicate through scent and body posture.

I spend a significant amount of time observing animals. Its my job.

Barking plays a secondary role in communication. In fact, I'm not so sure its incredibly important to a dog in the scheme of things. If a dog were to vote on whether to get fixed or get de-barked, I think they'd opt for the de-barking!

Also, the dog still makes noises! They can growl, whine, softly bark and howl. And now they can lead a much less stressful life with their owner who isn't stressing out constantly!!

After my sister's experience, I'm not as dead set against de-barking as I used to be. I did some research into it after what happened to her dog and I'm not horrified anymore at the thought of it.

And like you said, animals have enormous adaptive abilities. 3-legged dogs, blind horses, arthritic cats that can't jump anymore - none of them seem to be "suffering". They just get on with living life.

[joeybee12]

75. Yeah, it does bother them...and read the article, after being debarked

they were dumped and had to be rescued.

[magical thyme]

78. Being dumped and being de-barked are two very different issues

However, having read the article and seeing that at least in the 2 cases cited it *appears* to have caused health issues, that I can understand as being a basis for banning it.

I would expect there would be more evidence, though, that the procedure causes these kinds of issues when correctly performed, before either an outright ban or at least restrictions so that it becomes a last resort option.

The "buzzer collar" mentioned in a post above seems like a possible, realistic alternative.

[MADem]

49. I have two dogs who like to bark. Terriers are like that. When they bark too much,

I call them indoors. It's a simple thing. People need to pay attention to their animals so they don't bark out of stress or boredom. If they start doing the barky-barky with neighbor dogs and it goes on for too long, bring the dogs inside.

Anyone who "debarks" their dog is lazy as well as cruel. Give the dog guidance and he or she will know what to expect and won't have a need to bark incessantly. Spend time with the dog so it does not feel neglected. If the dog is excessively anxious, put the dog on Sam-E--it'll mellow 'em out and optimize their liver function, too (this is the main ingredient in one of the most popular treatments for liver issues in dogs and cats--it's often combined with milk thistle which also aids the liver).

No one's getting in my house without me knowing about it...these four-legged burglar alarms sound like snarling attack dogs when a stranger hits the walk in front of the house. Of course, they don't look like they sound, but the low growl on the little one would do a doberman proud.

My vet wouldn't do that debarking procedure before it became illegal in the Commonwealth, which makes my regard for him increase.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Um, people have their dogs' nuts cut off--- all the time.

What sort of constitutional violation is that?

If you were to give the dog a choice between its voice and its testicles, which one do you think the dog will choose?

[JonLP24]

60. Strikes me as inhumane

I know barks can be annoying but it is how dogs communicate and also strikes me as a lazy solution for dogs that bark more than usual due to boredom or because they haven't been socialized.

[AtomicKitten]

61. Barbarian ... except as a last ditch effort if barking is a deal-breaker.

I would rather someone have this procedure done safely by a vet if the owner is faced with giving up the dog because of barking.

[Jersey Devil]

62. I told my doggy about this and he is pissed!

I can't imagine someone being so cruel to an animal.

[LanternWaste]

66. Living animals do not have many rights at all, non-living corporations have more than I do.

Living animals do not have many rights at all, non-living corporations have more than I do.

Odd ethical rationalize we humans often use to minimize reality, yet celebrate the rights of imaginary constructs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Depriving a cow of it's right to life by eating it is legal too.

They're animals.

[undeterred]

81. Most of the time this happens in highrises.

Too many people piled on top of each other who can hear every little noise coming from their neighbors apartments.

I don't think that dogs are the best pets to have in urban areas where its difficult for them to get enough exercise. Taking away their ability to bark does not take away the underlying frustration. It seems like it is better to find an alternative pet if one is unable to change the behavior.

I wouldn't compare it to spaying and neutering. Doing this prevents many kinds of cancer later in life and prevents thousands and thousands of unwanted animals from being euthanized.

[quinnox]

83. I don't think dogs have the same rights as humans

nor should they. Otherwise, we shouldn't be neutering them or even keeping them as pets. Because this is a form of slavery if you think about it.

[warrprayer]

86. Extremely Cruel

in my opinion. If you don't want to hear the barking that goes with some breeds DON'T GET ONE. I know some repubs I would love to see "debarked"

[Zorra]

90. "On the third day,

the Grand Wazoo In The Sky gave the Cannamites of Dune dominion over all the creatures of the universe, to do with however they wished. Thus has it been commanded by your god."
The Book of Lordoverus, 4:16


"Mitrom! Those humans make the most annoying barking sounds. I really think it's time to remove their vocal chords!"

"Good idea, Anromy, I'll have the kennel slaves take care of it first thing in the morning"

[datasuspect]

91. To Serve Man isn't an instruction manual

it's a COOKBOOK