Are we surprised that I'm writing two entries in one week??? YES!
Well, whada ya know!
On the front page of the New York Times was an article on debarking your dog. Here's a link to the article, but don't be surprised if you're unable to link to it later; I've heard that the NYT is going private and they want you to pay money for archive vs. being able to search through it for free.
Anyways! The article discusses the argument of whether or not debarking your dog is ethical. They cite the AVMA, Banfield, and the AKC. The AKC admits that they have many dogs that show that are debarked but that they are perfectly healthy and normal and it does not affect them. One of the big reasons for debarking is for individuals who reside in apartment complexes and have had complaints about their animals. If it's such a problem, why not ban animals, or at least dogs, from the complex? On the other hand, Banfield refuses to do the procedure and the AVMA doesn't even teach debarking in vet school anymore. The article does on to say that the procedure is illegal in Britain and other European countries as well as a select few states.
The argument for those that believe debarking is not cruel is that it is a simple procedure in which their animal recovers quickly and there are no negative consequences. The argument on the other end is that you're taking away the animals ability to communicate! Why do something that is unnecessary?
In my opinion, (since I'm sure I've made myself unbiased) if the AVMA is no longer teaching vets how to perform the procedure, than why is ethically okay? If something is banned and no longer being taught, then there is a reason for that. Not to mention that you're taking away your animals ability to communicate with you. God help you if someone were to break into your home and all your dog can do is make a raspy noise. If it were me, every single time my dog made that raspy noise at me I would feel horrible for making the decision to debark them. Maybe if we threaten cutting the pet owner's vocal cords they'll then choose to not do it to their pets.
*************************************
Pet of the day!!!!
My name is Daija!!!


Meet Daija, I found her at the Wisconsin Humane Society. Daija is a 1 year old altered female. The rescue has dogs group by what human companion would be perfect for them. It says that Daija needs to go with an orange person. The site states that orange people are open to active dogs but like to relax and take it easy, too. They are happy to make the commitment for training, exercise, and extra snuggle or two. She's a pretty girl and hopefully she'll find the perfect forever home in Wisconsin.
I have retrievers, so I am accustomed to quiet dogs. They are bred to be quiet since a barking dog scares away game. The first time I heard a bark-softened dog I was shocked. Then the owner explained to me that she had to bark-soften her dog or euthanize it.
ReplyDeleteDe-barking might not be the choice I'd make for my dog, but I am unwilling to take that option away from another owner. Is it better to kill a dog rather than bark-soften it? I think not.
More people need to mind their own business. Those who want to define bark softening as cruelty should be forced to deal with a screaming dog and complaints by neighbors before they are allowed to define it as cruelty
I definitely understand your point of view, esp. between the choice of doing the procedure and euthanasia. But I would probably still find an alternative to doing the procedure, such as finding somewhere else to reside or even taking someone to court. You can't force someone to perform a surgery on an animal that is deemed as completely unnecessary,esp. if you have the AVMA to back you up.
ReplyDeleteI still define it as cruel and unnecessary because I believe there are behavioral options that can help with barking that do not include surgery, regardless of recovery time. If your child is next door screaming and crying, I'm not going to demand that you de-voice your child and in my opinion, it's the exact same thing.