Response to Dishonesty and Propaganda: Examiner Article on Devocalization
Beth Coughlin’s Examiner article is relatively short, so please allow me to quote here it in full:
Only July 14th the Massachusetts State House of Representatives will be holding a committee meeting regarding House Bill 344 (HB344): An Act Prohibiting the Devocalization of Dogs and Cats.
On the surface, many dog-lovers may say “good law”.
When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.
Certain breeds, including shetland sheep dogs and several breeds of terriers are high-alert dogs. Regardless of the training methods you use: positive reinforcement, punishment, desensitization, homopathy and even medication, they will continue to bark in a manner that can cause nuisance dog complaints.
Likewise, some neighbors will opt to complain even if a dog’s behavior is below the threshhold set by nuisance dog laws.
This law does not view the potential risk of being euthanized due to nuisance complaints a “legitimate health risk”. While many dog owners would agree that there are some people too ready to devocalize, this is a topic that should be handled from an education, not legislation approach.
While all other options should be explored prior to resorting to devocalization, better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark then in a shelter wondering if “tomorrow is the day.”
Contact your representative and let them know this is a bad law when you look at the larger picture. In the sheep’s clothing of animal welfare, animal rights activists have advocated turning a legitimate veterinary procedure into a Felony Offense.
____________________________
Beth,
Your post is almost too absurd to respond to, but the seriousness of this issue begs one nonetheless.
You state an animal is “better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark than in a shelter wondering if ‘tomorrow is the day.’” It’s not entirely clear whether “smaller, raspy bark” is intentional euphemism or true ignorance on your part. It would appear you know next to nothing about this vicious procedure or its results, but it seems more likely this is calculated obfuscation.
You say nothing of the horrific medical complications associated with devocalization, including airway obstruction (trouble breathing) and as a result difficulty with activity and exercise, and inability to eat solid food or treats without gagging. This is painful not only for the animal, but for people who care for it. In the Youtube video I’ve linked to you’ll hear a woman explain how her children cry when they witness this animal’s regular suffering.
Another paragraph reads: “…has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.”
You’re really working the death-by-barking angle here, aren’t you? Tell me, do you have any idea how many devocalization procedures are performed for reasons of commerce by disreputable breeders, for convenience by ignorant dog owners, and by criminals looking to avoid prosecution as opposed to “saving a dog’s life” that would have been euthanized without it? The National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, a council of ten prominent animal organizations in the US, found in a survey of over five thousand shelters that excessive barking did not figure in the top ten reasons people surrender dogs to shelters. In other words, you’re presenting a lie.
I find that people with positions like yours often use vague, insipid phrases like “all other options should be explored,” when you know full well if you’ve looked into it that all other options are not explored; the “education rather than legislation,” approach you espouse is obviously not working.
Have you yourself launched a single initiative regarding said education? Any ideas? You present none in this hollow piece of work.
The happy, healthy looking collie pictured in your article says nothing of the horrific psychological effects this painful procedure has on canines. Has the animal you pictured been devocalized? Or was this just an act of blatant propaganda on your part? I could post a picture of an entirely different sort, of a beagle much more familiar with this procedure who suffers pain, confusion and depression as a result. Readers can find a photo here of a dog named Stella, who suffered fifty percent obstruction of her airway after a devocalization operation.
You state “When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.”
Dig deeper? Not a lot of depth in your prose here, my friend. One wonders if you did any research on this horrific practice at all. If you truly had such an aversion to pointless legislation, you would be writing articles about the nuisance laws themselves and the social conditions that bring them about, not the extremely questionable operation you associate with them.
History does not lack for gruesome and unethical medical procedures which people later recognized as wrongful and inhumane. This is certainly one of them. You also neglected to mention that this procedure is outlawed in the United Kingdom as a form of mutilation, which is what it is.
To email or call your Mass state representative, please enter your address information here, then at the bottom of the page look for Senate in General Court.
