Pet parents, the good ones, adore their pets. They’d do absolutely anything to make their pets happy, from buying designer collars to organic treats. A pampered dog is a happy dog, say some. Yet, although dogs seem to brighten up a day with their sweet demeanor and live-in-the-moment attitudes, there’s one thing all loving pet parents can agree upon: incessant dog barking is annoying.
From the teeniest Chihuahua to the largest Irish Wolfhound, all dogs, if not properly trained, have the ability to bark until the cows come home. Others can even go through hours of endless training and still continue this nasty little habit. The problem though, is that barking doesn’t stay behind closed doors. It affects neighbors, friends, families, roommates, unsuspecting sidewalk roamers and door-knocking UPS workers.
The solution: A bowl full of ear plugs at your doorstep? Only in a pet parent’s dreams. Unfortunately, dogs that bark without remorse become vulnerable to neighborhood complaints that can get them kicked out of house and home. Some feel that the solution to extreme barking is a controversial surgery often referred to as “debarking” or “devocalization,” but medically termed a ”ventriculocordectomy.”
Dr. Marder with his dogs Nestle and Truffles
Devocalization is a surgery in which a veterinarian will snip a dog’s vocal cords, either via the mouth or through a small incision in the throat, bringing the dog’s vocal volume to a mere squeak, wheeze or whisper. At times, this procedure is necessary for medical or therapeutic reasons for which no other alternative exists, but in other circumstances, owners may choose this surgery purely for the purpose of silencing an excessively vocal dog.
In a New York Times article entitled “Heel. Sit. Whisper. Good Dog,” reporter Sam Dolnick profiled one particular pet parent who did the latter and put a stop to his Dachshund-Terrier mix Nestle’s persistent yapping. Nestle’s dog dad, Mike Marder, just so happens to be a veterinarian and explained that it was either this or losing his pooch.
It’s almost natural that a pet parent living in an apartment-drenched New York City may find himself on the receiving end of complaints even louder than the barking causing them. Well, neighbors in Dr. Marder’s Upper East Side apartment complex had no problem submitting their list of grievances. But instead of re-homing Nestle, Marder felt that having a veterinary surgeon cut Nestle’s vocal cords was the smarter alternative. He’s not alone in making that decision.
“There is no reliable estimate as to how many dogs have had their vocal cords cut,” reports Dolnick. “But veterinarians and other animal experts say that dogs with no bark can readily be found — but not necessarily heard — in private homes, on the show-dog circuit, and even on the turf of drug dealers, who are said to prefer their attack dogs silent.”
Animal advocates opposed to the practice of debarking often refer to the procedure as “mutilation” and “convenience devocalization,” meaning that pet parents who have their dogs’ vocal cords cut do so for their own convenience to avoid conflicts with neighbors and landlords instead of considering the dog’s needs.
The Animal Law Coalition (ALC), active in supporting anti-devocalization legislation such as that of Logan’s Law in the state of Massachusetts, which was spearheaded by the Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets that passed into law on July 21, calls the procedure cruel, risky and painful, and says that pet parents who’ve done this do so without regard to the dog’s health or wellbeing. ALC is not alone in the effort to stop this practice; both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), two of the largest veterinary associations in the country, have a standing policy denouncing devocalization.
Veterinarians performing a ventriculocordectomy
“AAHA is opposed to the practice known as debarking, canine devocalization or vocal cordectomy,” states the AAHA website. ”Devocalization for inappropriate and excessive vocalization is often ineffective in achieving the desired results and can deprive canines of the ability to perform a normal behavior. Appropriate behavioral modification efforts should be employed that avoid the use of punishment or aversive methods.”
Many veterinarians call the procedure outdated and inhumane, writes Dolnick, insisting that the procedure “destroys an animal’s central means of communication merely for the owner’s convenience.” In fact, there are veterinarians that will not perform the surgery because of the stance they’ve taken against the procedure. Most largely recommend, like AAHA, behavioral modification with a professional animal behaviorist to help curb nuisance barking. But what if training efforts fail?
“Canine devocalization should only be performed by qualified, licensed veterinarians as a final alternative after behavioral modification efforts to correct excessive vocalization have failed,” says the AVMA policy.
Supposedly, the underlying concern for those who support devocalization is that pet parents who are banned from devocalizing their pets and continue to have problems with their dogs’ barking will eventually have to surrender them to local shelters already overflowing with unwanted animals. Dolnick spoke to veterinarian Sharon L. Vanderlip, who’d been performing this surgery for more than 30 years in San Diego County. A passionate proponent of the procedure, Dr. Vanderlip believes devocalization saves lives.
“They recover immediately and they don’t ever seem to notice any difference,” she says. “I think that in certain cases it can certainly save a dog from being euthanized. If properly done, they behave totally the same afterwards and don’t seem to have any health problems.”
Labrador's throat after corrective surgery on his vocal cords
Those fighting to ban the practice in the U.S. would disagree. Organizations like Animal Law Coalition say that most times the procedure results in a build-up of scar tissue on the vocal cords, making it difficult for the animal to breathe, eat and express itself naturally. In fact, they say that many of these animals will have to undergo a second surgery to correct the problems resulting from the first.
Advocacy groups also believe that barking serves more purposes than just causing a nuisance. For one, it helps a dog express its anxiety, excitement, fears and more. “Dogs are usually barking because of some frustration,” Louise Murray, DVM, director of medicine at the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Bergh Memorial Animal Hospital in Manhattan, told Dolnick. “It’s frustrating to be a sheepdog with no sheep. What I’d be concerned about is if you’re debarking a dog and it has an underlying unhappiness.”
If indeed there is a more relevant cause for the barking than just being a nuisance, then the dog could potentially find more adverse ways of expressing it.
“Barking is just the tip of a large and deep behavioral iceberg,” says Pat Miller, a certified pet dog trainer and behavior consultant, in a video [below] by Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets. “Debark a bored, lonely or distressed dog, the three most common reasons for so-called nuisance barking, and you’re begging the dog to re-direct his barking and express his distress by offering other inappropriate behaviors, such as biting.”
From behavioral issues to complications due to the surgery, anti-devocalization advocates have laid down a pretty solid case against the procedure. To drive the issue home, in their advocacy for an anti-devocalization ban in Massachusetts, members of the Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets created videos [below] with interviews of pet parents with rescued devocalized dogs who’d suffered the consequences of that procedure. Many of them recount sad stories revealing problems with their dogs choking on food, breathing difficulties and their dogs needing constant vigilance because of their inability to warn the pet parent of any suffering.
Others across the web, who see nothing wrong with devocalization, make claims that their dogs return to complete normalcy after the procedure.
“Our family had an Irish Setter who we all loved dearly, but he barked incessantly at even the slightest scent of a raccoon,” comments blarkin1 on Dolnick’s New York Times article. ”We finally had him debarked and he still barked at the scent of a raccoon, although at a much lower volume. Point being: he didn’t seem to alter his behavior one bit and still hunted, romped and wagged.”
Passionate discussion about the topic can be seen across the blogosphere. Supporters of debarking, many times dog breeders who have to manage the barking of numerous dogs, vehemently defend the procedure and reject the term “debarking,” instead opting to call the procedure bark-softening. They insist that mislabeling the procedure gives the impression that the dogs are rendered completely voiceless, when they say that really it only lowers the volume of the bark. Supporters repeatedly cite cases of happy bark-softened dogs, such as the Irish Setter mentioned above, as proof positive of how the procedure keeps dogs in their homes. Their main point for defending devocalization is that barking is a leading cause in animal shelter surrenders.
However, different studies present differing data. The National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy conducted a survey with 12 shelters regarding the reasons for surrender. According to the council, the top 10 reasons are as follows:
1. Moving
2. Landlord issues
3. Cost of pet maintenance
4. No time for pet
5. Inadequate facilities
6. Too many pets in home
7. Pet illness(es)
8. Personal problems
9. Biting
10. No homes for littermates
It’s important to consider that members of the council include the ASPCA, AVMA, The Humane Society of the United States, Society of Animal Welfare Administration, National Animal Control Association, Cat Fanciers’ Association, Association for Veterinary Epidemology and Preventive Medicine, American Pet Products Association, American Association of Feline Practitioners and American Humane Society; many of which are against devocalization.
Also, since the study only surveyed 12 shelters, bark-softening supporters question the ability of the study to really represent shelter surrenders across the country. But, whether or not barking shows up as a top 10 reason for shelter surrender in other studies doesn’t necessarily mean that ”nuisance barking” is truly the problem, say anti-devocalization advocates. As previously mentioned, barking can result from any number of issues: lack of exercise, lack of stimulation, separation anxiety, illness and lack of socialization to name a few. So, though a dog owner may surrender a dog for “excessive barking,” the real reason, if dog owners are honest with themselves, could also possibly be something more like, “I didn’t have the time to walk him.”
The debate over devocalization rages on and legislation around the issue keeps pulling on either end of the bark-o-war rope. The recent win in Massachusetts would mean those violating the ban could face up to five years in prison and fines up to $2,500. (Massachusetts is the first U.S. state to pass a ban of this nature, according to the New York Times). The U.K. and other European countries have long carried bans that include outlawing procedures such as docking and declawing.
In the U.S., Ohio restricts the surgery to non-violent dogs, and California has had a similar ban proposed as legislation in the past. And though that law never passed, it hasn’t stopped advocates from introducing similar legislation. In May, the California Assembly passed Assembly Bill 2743, which makes it illegal for ”landlords in California to require animal declawing or devocalization as a condition of tenancy,” reported the Los Angeles Times. Yet, within the same month, the Los Angeles City Council asked the district attorney to draft an ordinance that would enforce fines on pet parents whose dogs violated barking-noise ordinaces — and so the pull-push of this debate continues.
Nevertheless, advocates of banning devocalization have achieved small victories here and there. Last year, Banfield, the largest pet general veterinary practice in the world with more than 750 hospitals, banned this surgery and others. Animal Law Coalition is in the process of pushing HR 5422 which, according to their website, “would make states that ban canine and feline devocalization eligible for federal grants of up to $1 million to prevent all forms of animal cruelty.”
As of now though, with less than a handful of states enforcing a devocalization ban, in most cases it becomes the pet parent’s decision of whether or not their dog should have the freedom to speak.
PHOTOS: ehow.com, ipetshome.com, onlyforpetlovers.com, incirclepets.com
Is devocalization cruel? Where do you stand? Leave your comments below.
Category : News
Esther
Jul 24, 2010
This is appalling.
Only a vet with no ethics would perform this surgery? This procedure should be banned.
Don’t have a dog, if you can’t handle the barking. I wonder if these are the same people who would like to do this to their mates?
Elizabeth
Aug 03, 2010
A Veterinarian Discusses Bark Softening
by Sharon Vanderlip, DVM
Recently a reporter from a major newspaper interviewed me about bark softening. During the interview, I told him about the innumerable cases of dogs I saw abandoned at the animal shelter because of barking problems. I shared my professional opinion that canine bark softening can be life-saving for many dogs if performed correctly and for the right reasons, such as to prevent an animal from being separated from its owner or from being abandoned or euthanized. After the article appeared in the newspaper, people submitted questions for me to answer on the newspaper’s website. The questions revealed how and why people were so confused and concerned about bark softening. To give readers a better understanding of what bark softening is, and to put it into perspective, I will describe the bark softening procedures and compare them to two of the most commonly performed elective pet surgeries, “spay and neuter”.
Canine bark softening is a veterinary procedure that has been performed for decades. Although it is not commonly performed, it has gained considerable public interest this year, following recent media exposure.
Canine bark softening techniques are described in detail in veterinary surgical text books, yet few veterinarians have been trained how to do the procedure. Today, more emphasis is placed on behavioral modification, environmental management, and pharmacotherapy (behavioral medication), rather than medical procedures, to correct problem barking.
The American Veterinary Medical Association’s position statement for canine bark softening is:
“Canine devocalization should only be performed by qualified, licensed veterinarians as a final alternative after behavioral modification efforts to correct excessive vocalization have failed.”
http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal _welfare/devocalization.asp
Most people are unaware that there is a bark softening procedure, so they have not watched it be performed and have no firsthand experience with it. Understandably, when they learn of the procedure for the first time, they are confused by the term used for the procedure: devocalization. Devocalization is a misnomer because bark softening does not render the dog voiceless, muted, or silent. When correctly performed, there is about a 50 percent reduction in volume and a lower pitch to the bark. To add to the confusion, the misnomer, devocalization, is used for two very different bark softening methods: the oral technique and the laryngotomy technique.
The oral technique is the procedure most commonly performed in veterinary practices because it is non-invasive and the procedure and recovery time are very short.
In my professional opinion, the laryngotomy technique, should not be performed. The laryngotomy technique can have serious post-operative complications, including seroma formation, delayed healing, tissue damage, and excessive scarring. Scarring can be so extensive that the dog can have difficulty breathing for the rest of its life.
1. Oral technique
This bark softening procedure is non-invasive and takes one to two minutes to perform, using a short acting injectable anesthetic. No anesthesia, whether gas or injectable, is without risk. An injectable anesthetic is used because the surgical approach is directly through the mouth and it would be very difficult to access the vocal folds if an endotracheal tube (used for gas anesthesia) was in the area where the procedure is being performed.
In the oral technique, the dog’s mouth is opened and one or two very small pieces of tissue are taken from one or both vocal folds using a slender biopsy instrument. The procedure usually takes less than two minutes. When correctly done, there is little to no bleeding or discomfort. Pain killers (analgesia) should always be given, however, as a precaution. Recovery from anesthesia takes a few minutes. Because there is no change in the dog’s behavior or attitude and because the dog can and will continue to bark, sedatives are sometimes given to keep the animal calm and quiet for a few days to reduce vocal fold scarring while healing takes place.
Results of the oral technique bark softening procedure vary among individual dogs. There is no way to predict or control the volume of the bark and the bark may have a raspy sound. Results are usually permanent, although in some cases dogs may eventually regain full volume of their bark.
2. Laryngotomy technique
In the laryngotomy technique, the dog is maintained on gas anesthesia through an endotracheal tube. A two inch incision is made through the skin, on the ventral surface of the neck, above the dog’s larynx. The muscles are separated, blood vessels are cauterized, the larynx is entered and most or all of the dog’s vocal fold tissues are removed. The incisions are then sutured back together. This technique is invasive, painful, requires several minutes of surgical time, and has a prolonged recovery time, during which time sedatives are required to keep the dog calm and quiet. Excessive scarring can result from this technique and cause permanent breathing difficulties.
Pet owners are naturally concerned about whether their dogs would be unhappy or psychologically changed in any way as a result of a bark softening procedure. To my knowledge, there have not been any peer-reviewed, published scientific studies that objectively measure changes in dogs’ moods, before or after any medical or surgical procedure. However, people who own dogs that have had the bark softening procedure by oral technique assert that their dogs show no change from their previous behaviors, personalities, and attitudes. The dogs also continue to bark as much as they did previously and their owners can still hear them.
Dogs bark for many reasons, including excitement, playfulness, warning, fear, separation anxiety, and loneliness. Many barking problems can be prevented or corrected with training, social enrichment, environmental management, and behavior modification techniques. In cases of separation anxiety, pharmacotherapy (behavior medications) may be helpful. These methods require time, effort, and dedication. Because every case is different, the success or failure of behavior modification techniques varies among individual animals, trainers, counselors, veterinary behavioral specialists, and owners. Dog owners can find help through veterinary behavior specialists (www.dacvb.org).
People who object to bark softening say that animals should not be subjected to an elective procedure strictly for the pet owner’s convenience. The fact is, people have been subjecting their pets to elective procedures of convenience for many years, the most common being “spaying and neutering”. Spay and neuter surgical procedures are widely promoted as something responsible pet owners should do to help reduce the pet population. In reality, most pet owners do not want to breed their pets. They spay and neuter their pets primarily for their own convenience,because they do not want to deal with the problems associated with owning an intact animal: behavioral changes, which may include aggression; mounting; attempts to escape and roam; excessive, frequent urination and territorial marking; unpleasant odors; and bloody vaginal discharge during estrus that stains carpet and furniture.
“Spay and neuter” is upheld in our country as “the right thing to do”, to the extent that mandatory spay and neuter is now being legislated in many parts of the United States. Yet, in some countries, these procedures are considered inhumane and unnecessary. Before we perform any procedure on our pets, we should know what the procedures entail, what their long-term effects may be, and what the alternatives are. Decisions about medical and surgical procedures for any pet should be made by the animal’s owner and veterinarian. Veterinary medical and surgical procedures should not be forced, mandated, banned, or legislated by politicians.
Of special note is Dr. Waters recent research on canine ovariohysterectomy and longevity. Dr. Waters’ findings indicate that dogs that keep their ovaries live longer than dogs that have had their ovaries removed. (Please see Dr. Waters study and references http://www.gpmcf.org/respectovaries.html for details). This very important study deserves serious consideration. During my 31 year veterinary career, I have recommended and performed thousands of canine ovariohysterectomies. My colleagues and I must now look at ovariohysterectomies with a different perspective, in light of these new, significant findings. We must now ask ourselves if removing a dog’s ovaries and possibly shortening her life span could be considered inhumane treatment if the procedure isn’t deemed medically necessary in the animal’s case? And if it is indeed inhumane, how can such a procedure be mandated by state or local authorities?
Below is a comparison of the differences between the most commonly performed elective procedures of convenience—the widely accepted and highly promoted practice of spaying and neutering—and the seldom performed, but often criticized, practice of bark softening:
Spaying and neutering
Spaying and neutering are invasive procedures that involve removing reproductive organs (gonadectomy). In the female, the procedure is considered “major surgery” because the abdomen is opened to remove the uterus and ovaries. The procedure, nicknamed a “spay”, is correctly termed an ovariohysterectomy. In the male, the testicles are removed. Tissues and blood vessels are cut, ligated, cauterized, and stitched. The procedure is nicknamed a “neuter”, but the correct term is castration. Ovariohysterecomies and castrations take from ten to thirty (sometimes more) minutes to perform, so intravenous catheters and fluids may be required. The procedures are painful, so they require a general gas anesthesia and analgesia (pain killers). Antibiotics may also be necessary. Although problems rarely occur when the procedures are correctly performed on healthy animals, these surgeries carry the risks associated with longer anesthesia time and surgical complications, such as infection, hemorrhage, cardiac or respiratory arrest, and death. Ovariohysterectomies and castrations may have long-term side-effects later in life, such as urinary incontinence, hormonal imbalances, and, as previously mentioned for females, a shorter lifespan.
Bark softening
Bark softening (by oral technique) is non-invasive and takes about two minutes to perform. A short acting injectable anesthetic is used that lasts about five to seven minutes. When correctly performed, there is little to no bleeding or discomfort. The dog is given pain medication as a precaution and sedatives are prescribed to keep the animal quiet for several days to reduce scarring of the vocal folds. If done correctly, bark softening has no side effects except that the dog has a quieter bark. In some cases, the voice can return to full volume over time.
EASW
Aug 03, 2010
Having had multiple dogs devocalized, the scare tactics in this article & videos are just media hype supporting animal rights!!!! My dogs had the procedure done about 11:00 a.m. They arrived home (fully awake) by 4:00 – 5:00 p.m. They ate their dinners. Does that sound like lots of pain; no, because it’s not!!! It is a very brief procedure that, when done properly by a skilled vet, eliminates the misery of loud barking (there is still a soft noise that is not annoying) for neighbors. This is no more painful than an accidental toenail being cut too short. Shall we eliminate clipping of nails also? I am a well educated adult and can make medical decisions with the input from my veterinarian. I don’t need some bureaucrat or animal rights advocate determining what is best for my situation or my animals’ health. Amazingly these advocates for eliminating debarking are wildly in favor of spay/neuter on everything–which is far more invasive and painful with a longer recuperative period. That suture photo is ridiculous; only a butcher would have performed that surgery (if it was even a debark?). Furthermore, there are other issues such as tracheal, esophageal, cardiac problems, etc. that cause breathing issues. Debarking is no more likely to cause breathing issues than spaying is to cause abdominal adhesions. Odd how no one cares about the side affects of spaying and neutering–and there are some significant ones. Stop falling for animal rights’ advocates who want everyone to have to give up their pets and end pet ownership!
Pam
Aug 03, 2010
My sheltie is debarked because the landlord said it was the dog or the bark. I get off work at 3 in the morning. She’s happy to see me, so she barks. It was waking everyone up. Now she can express herself all she likes. She still barks but it’s softer.
E N Krause
Aug 04, 2010
Debarking is not a cruel procedure when done by a qualified veterinarian. Large incisions, as shown in the dog’s picture in the article, are rarely, if ever, used. The procedure is done through the dog’s mouth and takes minutes to perform. It’s not a common procedure. In my 11 years in small animal practice, I’ve been asked to perform the procedure one time. Clearly, owners need to work with their vet and a good trainer to discover what the reason for the barking is and work with any behavior problems there may be. For some dogs, the reason is that they simply like to bark — the dog isn’t bored, lonely, anxious or frustrated, just talkative. When choosing a new dog, whether it is an adult or a puppy, it is not possible to predict who will be problem barkers and who won’t. When appropriate training fails, which at times it does, debarking is a viable option. Having been around many debarked and non-debarked dogs throughout my life, I can honestly say that I have never noticed a behavioral change in any of the dogs. Their ability to communicate with other dogs and their owners was never significantly affected, nor was their place in the “pack”.
D Gust
Aug 04, 2010
I have owned 6 dogs in my life that were de-barked. All Shelties. I’ve owned more than 6, but these 6 were impossible to train, and believe me I spent a lot of money and time with different trainers. In fact it was those trainers that suggested Bark Softening. I’ve had someone come to my door and ask me how I trained my dog to whisper, because she was about to become homeless over hers. Should I have found other homes. NO, I love these dogs. They are Agility Champions, Obedience Champions and one has a herding title. But they thought the squirrels in the trees needed a speech, as do birds, butterflies, the sprinklers. Their motto seemed to be, if it moves it must be barked at. Of the 6 dogs, none has ever had stiches in their necks, all done thru the mouth. All awake and home within 4 hrs. All eating dinner that night. NO personality changes what-so-ever. They continue to bark, and yes you can hear it, just not so loud! No difficulty breathing, nothing. If done correctly, it’s a life saver. I work with rescue. The #1 reason they have been turned in is barking problems. And how many more went to the pound rather than rescue?
GaelS
Aug 08, 2010
This law was based on the premise that a surgical procedure removes a dog’s vocal cords. Proponents of the law depicted this procedure as high risk for bleeding, infections, excessive scarring; they claim that debarked dogs can’t communicate, can’t warn their humans of impending danger, gag incessantly. They claim that breeders and lazy owners utilize this practice instead of taking the time to train their dog(s).
Here are the FACTS:
Debarking and/or devocalization are misnomers for this single, quick and yes, life saving procedure. From start to finish, it takes approximately 10-15 minutes. The dog is anesthetized, the veterinarian goes down the throat with a cautery tool or biopsy punch and makes a small notch in one or both sides of the vocal folds. (Dogs don’t actually have vocal cords like humans.) There is often little, or in the case of the cautery tool, no bleeding. And amazingly enough, these dogs will wake up from their drug induced nap and BARK….. just not as loudly. Researchers in Australia reported that after bark softening, a dog’s bark is still audible at up to 20 meters (approximately 65 ft)
The author’s statement that “both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), two of the largest veterinary associations in the country, have a standing policy denouncing devocalization.” is plainly misleading as both these organizations, as well as the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association, opposed the law.
Despite claims from those opposed to bark softening, complications are rare as are any of the side effects they claim. Since you seem to refer to many points made by myself and others who are experienced with this procedure, I challenge you to find where anyone stated that barking was a major cause of dog’s being surrendered to shelters.
What WAS stated were the results of research by Dr. Gary Patronek, DVM,
done AFTER the study you cited by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy. Patronek reported that of the dogs surrendered because of behavioral issues, 41% were due to excessive/problem barking. Whether that’s 100 dogs or 100,000 is immaterial. Saving one dog from euthanasia is rationale enough for me to allow qualified vets to perform this procedure.
Those against the “debarking” bill have stated repeatedly… the reason the vast majority of people have never heard of this procedure is because it’s seldom done. The reason most vets don’t do it is because its not something that most “clients” request. It is primarily utilized by people who have dogs that bark obsessively and who do so to prevent legal actions. Those who insist that “dog show enthusiasts” frequently “debark” their dogs have never been to a dog show.
The author quoted Dr. Sharon Vanderlip, DVM from an interview where she discussed bark softening from a veterinary professional’s viewpoint: She states, “…canine bark softening can be life-saving for many dogs if performed correctly and for the right reasons, such as to prevent an animal from being separated from its owner or from being abandoned or euthanized.” Yet, her expertise was dismissed and instead, the author cites the ALC and CPRPets, who make blatantly false representations of the severity of the procedure, the risk factors and the aftereffects.
Any surgery results in scar tissue. Any surgery involving anesthesia carries similar risks. Common sense would tell someone capable of rational thought that a notch less that 5mm in size could create the amount of scar tissue it would take to impair a dog’s breathing or swallowing. Having had several bark softened dogs over 30+ years, I have NEVER had one with any such difficulty. My dogs have always been highly active, competing in a variety of canine sporting events, without any problems as a result of having been bark softened. Few people know that having your dog spayed or neutered is MUCH more risky and can lead to far more serious health problems, including an increased risk of bone, heart and splenic cancers/tumors.
It important to address facts about canine communication. Researchers tell us that wild canids rarely bark past the adolescent stage, belying those who claim that bark softened dogs can’t ‘communicate’, can’t ‘warn’ or ‘sound the alarm.’ As such, it’s simply anthropomorphizing when humans attribute barking as a dogs way of talking . Wild dogs communicate using body language, smell and a series of yips and growls that bark softened dogs can still make. Just as a reminder, dogs that have been “debarked” can still bark!
Animal Law Coalition is spearheaded by NY attorney and animal rights activist Laura Allen. While CPRPet’s Beth Birnbaum claims this was a grassroots effort, it was Allen (in NY) who drafted the bill for presentation to the Massachusetts legislature. People need to open their eyes to the reality that these groups, along with the Humane Society of the United States and PETA, have NO interest in animal welfare; their publicly stated position would be that domestic animals including companion animals, your dog, your cat,would be but a memory in the fabric of American society. If people don’t wake up and help stop them, you won’t be able to have a “pet” in 20-25 years.