Devocalization

Devocalization (also known as ventriculocordectomy or vocal cordectomy and when performed on dogs is commonly known as debarking or bark softening) is a surgical procedure performed on dogs and cats,[1] where tissue is removed from the animal's vocal cords to permanently reduce the volume of its vocalizations.

Part of a series on
Animal rights

The Movement

Aspects

Ideas

Related
 Animals portal

Indications and contraindications

Devocalization is usually performed at the request of an animal owner (where the procedure is legally permitted). The procedure may be forcefully requested as a result of a court order. Owners or breeders generally request the procedure because of excessive animal vocalizations, complaining neighbors, or as an alternative to euthanasia due to a court order.

Contraindications include negative reaction to anesthesia, infection, bleeding, and pain. There is also the possibility of the removed tissue growing back, or of scar tissue blocking the throat, both requiring further surgeries, though with the incisional technique, the risk of fibrosis is virtually eliminated.[2]

Effectiveness

Canine

The devocalization procedure does not take away a dog's ability to bark. Dogs will normally bark just as much as before the procedure. After the procedure the sound will be softer, typically about half as loud as before, or less, and it is not as sharp or piercing. So while the procedure does not stop barking or silence the animal completely, it is effective in reducing the sound level and sharpness of the dog's bark.[3]

Most devocalized dogs have a subdued "husky" bark, audible up to 20 metres.[4]

Surgical procedure

The procedure may be performed via the animal's mouth, with a portion of the vocal folds removed using a biopsy punch, cautery tool, scissor, or laser. The procedure may also be performed via an incision in the throat and through the larynx, which is a more invasive technique.[1] All devocalization procedures require general anesthesia.[2]

Reasons for excessive vocalization

Chronic, excessive vocalization may be due to improper socialization or training, stress, boredom, fear, or frustration.[5] Up to 35% of dog owners report problems with barking, which can cause disputes and legal problems.[6] The behavior is more common among some breeds of dog, such as the Shetland Sheepdog, which are known as loud barkers, due to the nature of the environment in which the breed was developed.

Less invasive interventions

Vocalizations are a natural behavior of animals which they use widely in intra-specific and inter-specific communication. As such, devocalization should generally be considered only as a last resort. Before this surgical intervention, there are other, less invasive interventions which can be considered to overcome excessive vocalizations.

Training

Training can be one of the most effective techniques to help combat excessive barking in dogs. Acquiring the help of a professional dog trainer can often help reduce an animal's barking.[7]

Corrective collars

The use of automatic and manual corrective collars can be useful as a training aid when used correctly; however, the use of corrective collars, particularly shock collars, is controversial and banned in some countries. Types of corrective collars include[8] vibration, citronella spray, ultrasonic and electrostatic/shock collar.

Accommodation

Because dogs often bark excessively due to stress, boredom, or frustration, changing aspects of an animal's environment to make them more content is a suitable way to quiet them down, rather than forcibly silencing a distressed animal. Spending more time with an animal, such as playing, walking, and other bonding activities, will keep them occupied and make them feel more at ease. If the animal is stressed, it is best to remove the object that is causing them discomfort.

Controversy and legislation

Reasons opposing
  • In some regions of the US and in the UK, convenience devocalization is considered a form of surgical mutilation.[9]
  • Most vets and the RSPCA offer information to behavioral schools on how to train dogs not to bark.

Reasons favoring
  • After surgery, dogs are allowed to bark more freely, which is a natural behavior.
  • The dog is no longer subject to constant disapproval for its barking.
  • Breeds and individual animals known for excessive barking/vocalizing have a higher chance of being adopted/rescued and not being repeatedly re-homed if/when training fails.
  • After debarking, dogs that previously had to be kept indoors to avoid antagonizing neighbors can be allowed outdoors.[3]

Context

Dr. Kathy Gaughan points out that "the surgery stops the barking, but it doesn't address why the dog was barking in the first place."[10] Gaughan notes that visitors to her clinic who request debarking are usually looking for a "quick fix".[10] Gaughan states that, commonly, those who seek debarking live in apartments, or have neighbors who complain. Gaughan also counts "breeders with many dogs" among those who most often seek convenience devocalization. However, Dr. Gaughan does not agree with those who claim the procedure is cruel, stating: "Recently, some animal advocates have asserted this surgery is cruel to the animal; some countries have even outlawed the procedure. I do not believe the surgical procedure is cruel; however, failing to address the underlying factors is inappropriate."[11]

Some breeders seek the surgery in order to limit or diminish noise levels for personal reasons ranging from convenience to prevention; some breeders even seek the surgery for puppies prior to going to new homes.

Opinions of animal welfare societies

Multiple animal medicine and animal welfare organizations discourage the use of convenience devocalization, recommending that it only be used as a last resort. However, organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Animal Hospital Association and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, oppose laws that would make devocalization illegal.

The American Veterinary Medical Association's official position states that "canine devocalization should only be performed by qualified, licensed veterinarians as a final alternative after behavioral modification efforts to correct excessive vocalization have failed." [12]

The AVMA's position was later adopted by the American Animal Hospital Association.[13][14]

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association's position statement on devocalization of dogs states: “The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) discourages “devocalization” of dogs unless it is the only alternative to euthanasia, and humane treatment and management methods have failed."[15]

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) recommends that animal caretakers first attempt to address animal behavior problems with humane behavior modification techniques and/or with a treatment protocol set up by an animal behavior specialist. The ASPCA recommends surgery only if behavior modification techniques have failed, and the animal is at risk of losing its home or its life.[16]

The legality of convenience devocalization varies by jurisdiction.

The procedure is outlawed as a form of mutilation in the United Kingdom and all countries that have signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals.[17] In the United States, devocalization is illegal in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Warwick, Rhode Island.

United Kingdom

Debarking is specifically prohibited in the UK, along with ear cropping, tail docking, and declawing of cats.[18] By law, convenience devocalization is considered a form of surgical mutilation.

United States

In the United States, laws vary by state. In 2000, anti-debarking legislation was proposed in California, New Jersey, and Ohio. The California and New Jersey bills failed, partially due to opposition from groups who predicted the ban would lead to similar bans on ear cropping and other controversial cosmetic surgical procedures on dogs. The Ohio bill survived, and was signed into law by Governor Robert Taft in August 2000.[19] However, Ohio Revised Code 955.22 only outlawed debarking of dogs considered "vicious".[20]

In February 2009, 15-year-old Jordan Star of Needham, Massachusetts, filed a bill to outlaw performing convenience devocalization procedures upon cats and dogs.[21] The bill was co-sponsored by Senator Scott Brown, with the title Logan's Law, after a debarked sheepdog. Star said of convenience devocalization: "To take a voice away from an animal is morally wrong." The bill became state law on April 23, 2010.

Devocalizing cats and dogs became illegal in Massachusetts by state law in 2010[22] and in Warwick, Rhode Island, by city ordinance in 2011.[23] Legislation to ban devocalization of dogs and cats in New York State is underway.

gollark: Also, apparently someone made CraftOSOS?
gollark: I think they're all pretty cheap because mass production, so the only issues might be power consumption and complexity.
gollark: I see.
gollark: Which presumably requires at least three (3) processing power.
gollark: Well, they wanted a graphing calculator, yes?

See also

References
  1. "Devocalization fact sheet" (PDF). Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association. Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  2. Ventriculocordectomy (“Debarking”), by Dawn Brown DVM, April 12, 2009, Mushing magazine
  3. Debarking Dogs: Bark Softening Surgery, April, 2013
  4. Code of practice for debarking of dogs, Bureau of Animal Welfare, Attwood, Victoria, Australia, October, 2001
  5. Cosmetic Surgery for Dogs and Cats Archived 2009-03-29 at the Wayback Machine, In Defense of Animals
  6. Declawing and Debarking: What are the Alternatives?: World Small Animal Veterinary Association, World Congress – Vancouver 2001
  7. Millan, Cesar. "Mr". Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  8. Anon. "PetSafe Products". PetSafe. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  9. http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/hsvma/devocalization-fact-sheet-1.pdf
  10. Debarking surgery won't take away dog's motivation to bark, Understanding Animals
  11. K-State Perspectives. "Opinion: The pros and cons of debarking". Archived from the original on May 23, 2007.
  12. AVMA policy: Canine Devocalization (Approved by the AVMA Executive Board June 2002; reaffirmed April 2008; oversight: Animal Welfare Committee)
  13. Canine Devocalization Position Statement Archived 2010-07-13 at the Wayback Machine, American Animal Hospital Association
  14. New AAHA position statement opposes cosmetic ear cropping, tail docking
  15. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. "CVMA: Devocalization of Dogs – Position Statement". Retrieved November 7, 2015.
  16. Position Statement on Surgical Procedures for Resolving Behavior Problems, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
  17. "European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals". Council of Europe. Council of Europe. Retrieved 29 July 2016.
  18. "Animal Welfare Charter". Hastings Borough Council. Archived from the original on 2008-11-21. Retrieved 2008-07-20. It is now illegal for ear cropping and debarking of dogs as well as the declawing of cats to take place.
  19. Animal control is people control Archived 2011-07-22 at the Wayback Machine, Animal People News, May 2002
  20. Confining, restraining, debarking dogs., Ohio Revised Code
  21. "Teen Files Bill to Make Vocal Surgery Illegal: Putting a Bite into Debarking", Boston Herald. February 02, 2009.
  22. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Session Laws, Chapter 82, An Act Prohibiting Devocalization of Dogs and Cats: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2010/Chapter82
  23. City of Warwick, RI, Chapter 4 Animals and Fowl, Article IV, Animal Care; Spaying and Neutering Dogs and Cats, Sec. 4-132. Devocalization prohibited: http://www.warwickri.gov/pdfs/cityclerk/2010/PCO-29-10.pdf%5B%5D
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.