Tuesday February 16, 2010, 5:38 pm
If you live in MA, please call the office of House Speaker DeLeo (617-722-2500) during business hours and urge him to ensure House Bill 344 moves to the floor quickly-as it's written. If you have time please call your own State Representative and urge him/her to support House Bill 344 as it's written. You can find your State Rep. here, http://www.wheredoivotema.com/, fill in your address then look for "rep in general court."

Thanks!

Tuesday February 16, 2010, 5:41 pm
This is not right, no animal should be devocalized. It is the only voice they have, no one has the right to take it away. Thanks Jordan for posting this.

Tuesday February 16, 2010, 5:43 pm
Dog de-barking is a horrible practice which should be banned everywhere.
Having said that, it would come in handy for a few humans I know! ;)

Tuesday February 16, 2010, 6:10 pm
This is such an important issue. Please, people, get behind this bill.

Tuesday February 16, 2010, 6:39 pm
Jordan, thanks this barbaric and inhumane procedure, this is important for the sake of dogs.
http://www.wheredoivotema.com/

Tuesday February 16, 2010, 6:59 pm
this is so disgusting that a law has to be passed to stop this barbaric pratice. how anyone could do this to thier dog is unbelievable and uncivilized

Tuesday February 16, 2010, 7:26 pm
TY Jordan forwarded!!

Tuesday February 16, 2010, 8:42 pm
how difficult would it be to report it to the town. big deal. if they do as few as they say, they won't have much to report. and dr. haller says they oppose convenience de-barking, as if that keeps any owner or vet from doing it. we need laws because people can't be trusted.

Tuesday February 16, 2010, 8:49 pm
I totally agree with you Laura H.!!! There are many people whom I'd like to see muted! Having devocalisation is absolutely unnecessary. I'd like to get my hands on these politicians and devocalise them! ;D

Wednesday February 17, 2010, 3:42 am
Noted and strongly AGREED!

Wednesday February 17, 2010, 6:47 am
Thank you Jordan. There is a petitiion on change.org for this I posted it as a news story yesterday if you want to sign it.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/364341163/1393054

Wednesday February 17, 2010, 7:03 am
Noted and forwarded. Thank you Jordan.

Wednesday February 17, 2010, 7:04 am
I am actually surprised that Vets are still doing this-but I guess money talks to a lot of unethical Vets. It is a disggusting practice.

Wednesday February 17, 2010, 7:26 am
I just called De Leo's office and was told they're getting LOTS of calls supporting this bill.

Wednesday February 17, 2010, 8:06 am
Thanks for all the support! Rep. Pedone is abusing his power by stalling it in committee and listening to special interests instead of his consitutents and Massachusetts. And Chana, DeLeo's office has been getting a ton of calls, but he's still not supporting the bill. Something has to be going on.

Meet Devocalized dogs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZPoyuMw870
Hear What the experts have to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ADbMoX4aw
'

Wednesday February 17, 2010, 3:06 pm
Mutilating dogs in this way should not even be considered, never mind actioned. What is going on with this Representative that he does not take any notice of those he is supposed to represent? This cruelty is against the law in the UK. Wake up Massachusetts! People in the USA, contact your friends, relatives, and contacts in MA and get them to WRITE-- the phone calls can be ignored and the emails deleted. The paper can be thrown in the bin, but hopefully not-- and only the most extreme authoritarian saboteurs will burn the paper evidence. Thanks Simone

Wednesday February 17, 2010, 3:07 pm
Sorry I meant THANK YOU, JORDAN.

Thursday February 18, 2010, 10:29 pm
You are completely missing the point! When a cancer victim has to have a leg, or breast, or nose cut off to save his life, of course he would rather look normal! But he would even more rather be alive! Well, these dogs and their owners would of course rather they sounded normal, but even more they’d rather be alive! Dog officers can legally order dogs killed or removed for noisiness. You moral busybodies presume to prescribe for other people in a situation you know nothing about. Do you really think it is right to outlaw solutions that other people use to save lives, just because you do not like them? How would you feel if someday you have a problem dog - or child - and find that other people have outlawed the only solution that works in your case?

Thursday February 18, 2010, 10:34 pm
Bonnie, there are alternatives short of surgery for behavior modification.

Perhaps you could spend your time more effectively looking into these alternatives, rather than calling people names.

Thursday February 18, 2010, 11:17 pm
the bill has a provision for exceptions. the vets would just have to certify that they performed the procedure. this would eliminate the convenience surgeries, but allow for necessities.

Friday February 19, 2010, 1:11 am
Debarking is always a last resort. Who would do it if they didn’t have to? It serves as the final hope for some owners who would otherwise have to give up their dogs. You don't seem to realize that there will always be some dogs (especially the small, energetic types) that just can't be trained not to bark, not every pet owner is good at training, and some people are just plain unfortunate in having unreasonable neighbors. Besides, some alternatives are far crueler than debarking. Electric collars can burn the dog’s neck and leave permanent nerve damage; they can malfunction or go off when other dogs bark, leaving the dog confused, distraught, and terrorized; most serious barkers are perfectly capable of figuring out that the collar won’t shock them when it isn’t on them; the behaviorists get desperate clients to pay their high prices for consultation that doesn’t always work, so they eventually DRUG the poor dogs, who then live a permanently slow, doped life. This is humane?

Friday February 19, 2010, 9:54 pm
i have an anxiety barker that has not been cured by training or muzzle. i have to leave her inside when i'm going to be gone for a while. it is difficult, to say the least. i also know of a woman who had the procedure done because she simply didn't like barking, and that dog was not obsessive. the point of this bill is that the surgery could still be done for extreme cases, but it could not be done routinely.

Saturday February 20, 2010, 5:44 am
poor things have little voice as it is, and these idiots want to completely take that away! ty Jordan for standing UP!

Saturday February 20, 2010, 8:41 am
Some people seem to have the impression that this bill wouldn't stop surgery for "extreme cases." In fact, it would. What the bill actually says is that only "medical" reasons would be exempt. Read the bill text. "Medical" does not include neighborhood disagreements.

In addition, the town clerks association opposes it because it adds more work to the already overburdened town clerks, who are constantly facing expansions to their jobs caused by pointless, make-work regulations like this. Several bills currently before the Massachusetts legislature include similar requirements. It's another unfunded mandate on the towns, who have to pay the town clerks' wages. When the town clerks' jobs, and therefore their hours, keep expanding, the towns have to pay for longer hours or more employees, and the taxpayers have to pay higher taxes. Do you really want to pay to have the government track dog operations, when there are so many much more important things for the government to be worrying about?

Saturday February 20, 2010, 9:19 am
Catherine Turkey said: "i have an anxiety barker that has not been cured by training or muzzle. i have to leave her inside when i'm going to be gone for a while. it is difficult, to say the least."

Are you saying that you would leave your dog outside when you are away from home if it wasn't for the barking, and that you find it an imposition to have to bring the dog inside? Why have a dog at all if it isn't to be with you in the house? I would never leave my dog outside when I wasn't around --too many bad things could happen. It's hard to imagine that attitude. I doubt anyone would go so far as to put a dog through an operation for such a petty reason. Maybe you don't realize the magnitude of the problem. I am talking about dogs that can't be stopped from barking for more than a few moments at a time even when their owner is right there trying to stop them, dogs that bark nonstop while they are playing, dogs that start barking as they run out the door and don't stop for more than a few minutes at a time until they come back in, and dogs in apartment buildings where even indoor barking will bother the neighbors. You may not have met dogs like this, but I have met lots. They tend to be the small, energetic dogs, not the big couch potatoes, but every dog is an individual. Owners can never tell which dog will be a barker until they have lived with it for a while and grown to love it. Since I am a foster home for dogs given up by their owners and looking for new homes, I have a lot of experience with new dogs coming into a home, and even the barkiest usually are quiet for about three weeks before they start feeling comfortable enough to start barking. You can never tell ahead of time how the dog will turn out, so you can't just say, "Don't buy such-and-such kind of dog."

Saturday February 20, 2010, 9:39 am
i couldn't find a link to the bill, but the text does read 'disease, birth defect, and injury'. i would then ask them to include (since it's still being reviewed) court ordered de-barking after proof of paid training. it would be cruel to put an animal through the procedure because its owners are lazy and irresponsible. people often talk about big government, and lost liberties, but the fact is we give up many freedoms (and pay for it) in order to live in a civilised society. children, animals, the elderly and disabled are the most vulnerable in society. enacting legislation to protect them is never a waste of resources. and if we could rely on the good judgement of all vets, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Saturday February 20, 2010, 9:51 am
just saw your second post. i am an animal rescuer. i adopted a blind, diabetic, hypothyroid lab who was hours from euthanasia about six months ago. she was an eviction dog who spent her whole life on a cement patio. she is happiest outside, but if she hears me leaving and starts to act up, i will put her inside. she sleeps indoors at night. i do whatever i think is best for her, as long as it doesn't pose a problem for anybody else.

Saturday February 20, 2010, 12:35 pm
Catherine suggested adding to the bill an examption for "court ordered de-barking after proof of paid training." The trouble with this is that it would cost both owners and taxpayers money to require that it go through the courts, as well as a long delay for neighbors who want immediate relief. Why not just let the owners and neighbors and dog officer work it out for themselves and not waste everyone's time and money? There may be an occasional person who makes the decision too lightly, but there are built-in, extremely effective deterrents to make that rare: 1) any kind of operation is expensive and carries at least some risk, 2) very few vets do the operation, only about 3 in MA, and 2) I assure you that everyone who is considering the operation feels the same emotional repugnance you do, but they override that repugnance because they don't feel they have any other choice that will let them keep the dog.

Saturday February 20, 2010, 4:29 pm
Bonnie, you've tried spreading your lies everywhere about devocalization, it's enough. Cutting a dog's or cat's vocal cords for convenience and profit is cruel, bottom line. People can see through your lies. It doesn't save dogs lives, devocalized animals are abandoned like any other, you know that. Most of the devocalized dogs we've found in MA were devocalized by their BREEDERS and then abandoned still. Devocalization isn't uncommon at all, you've said before that you've met over 200 devocalized dogs. Stop trying to cover up cruelty.

Saturday February 20, 2010, 4:36 pm
Thank you, Jordan. We know from history that people can always find rationalizations for cruelty and barbarity. These dogs cannot speak for themselves (and, unfortunately, cannot even bark for themselves any more.)

Thank you for being such a wonderful advocate for our furry friends.

Tuesday February 23, 2010, 4:19 pm
Thank you Jordan for all you do for the Animals.

Thursday February 25, 2010, 6:57 pm
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/campaign.faces?siteId=3&campaign=AnimalDevocalization

hope i got that right. had to punch it in manually. if not, just search animalrescuesite/devocalization

Sunday February 28, 2010, 9:04 pm
Jordan, I hope you learn from this experience that before you listen to people with no direct experience in a particular field and let them persuade you to force other people actually involved in that field to change things, that you should talk to the people actually working in that field and find out from them how their field actually works and why. Sometimes, as in this case, it turns out that the “conventional wisdom” of people on the outside looking in completely misunderstands what is going on. It is important to understand things before you try to change them.

Nobody "cuts their cords,"- it is just a tiny nick in the vocal FOLD (singular, one on each side).
Nobody does it for "convenience" - it is done because the NEIGHBORS demand it and the Animal Control Officer will banish the dog.
Nobody devocalizes cats - they don’t make enough noise to bother neighbors, so the operation doesn’t exist. This just shows how little the bill writers know about the subject.
How can you know that the dogs’ breeders debarked and then abandoned them - if they have been abandoned, you don’t know where they came from. And I don’t know of any “breeders” that would “abandon” their dogs; they certainly aren’t reputable ones, and they certainly aren’t making any profit if they have to abandon them instead of selling them.
Also Nobody does it for "profit" - more on this below.

Sunday February 28, 2010, 9:14 pm
It’s not “breeders” who “profit” from debarking. Think about this logically. First of all, breeders are fully aware that debarking makes a dog LESS attractive to pet owners. If they debark any puppies, it is only the ones they plan to keep, and only because they already know they have intolerant neighbors, and then not until the dogs are 6 months old, because vets won’t do it before that age. If you bothered to actually find out how pet breeding works in the real world, you would find out that pet breeding is hard, dirty work for very little profit. Most people who breed a few dogs lose money at it if they truly figure in all the expenses; they do it for love. The only ones who make any money are the large-volume commercial breeders, and they make only the slimmest profit. Debarking is an expense they do not need, and the pipe-down-the-throat story is just another myth. (Vets tell me that it would kill the dog, not debark it.) Besides, commercial breeders are federally licensed and inspected under the Animal Welfare Act and, as zoned businesses, are excluded from dense residential neighborhoods where noise matters. Profits are low because expenses for keeping live animals are high and continual, whether they are currently producing or not, and because risk of unexpected problems is high, while pet prices are kept artificially low because so many people love animals so much that they are willing, even eager, to work with them just for the fun of it. It is the same reason that most jobs in publishing are very poorly paid: People are so eager for those jobs that businesses can get away with offering low pay, or even none at all.
Think about where the money REALLY is in this issue: Outlaw a simple procedure and the behaviorists get a lot more desperate clients to pay their high prices for consultation that doesn’t work, so they eventually DRUG the poor dogs, who then live a permanently slow, doped life. This is humane? And the owners have to ante up for the drugs for the dog’s lifetime. NOW tell me where the money is.

Monday March 1, 2010, 4:54 pm
Oh please Bonnie. I've talked to most of the major animal professionals in the state (vets, behaviorists, shelter managers) and people who have rescued devocalized dogs from their BREEDERS who dumped them.

Nice new claim about the behaviorists, did you give up on your old "this is not a straightforward be kind to animals bill?"

Stop trying to spread these lies, you have so many loopholes in everything you say.

Example: "Devocalization isn't even happening" and "I have met over 200 devocalized dogs" Really?

Monday March 1, 2010, 8:46 pm
Bonnie, that's just plain silly what you wrote. People debark dogs for the same reason they declaw cats: their values are screwed up and they expect the animals to fit in to our lifestyles rather than accepting the animals for what they are.

You have a romanticized view of dog breeders - of pet breeders, in general. There are certainly some who do it for the right reasons and put the animals' welfare above their own, but there are far too many who do it for the wrong reasons. And you certainly can make money at it if you cut corners and don't care about the animals. Does the term "puppy mill" mean anything to you?

Thursday March 4, 2010, 8:23 am
Jordan, if you’re going to quote me, get it right: “CAT devocalization isn’t happening.” There are 500 to 2000 or more dogs at any dog show, and I go to a lot, so, yes, it is possible to meet 200 devocalized dogs. And you couldn’t possibly have talked to “most” veterinarians and shelters. There are over a thousand vets in Massachusetts, and hundreds of shelters, starting with one run by almost every town (there are 351 towns), as well as the private shelters. And your idea of rescue and dumping is way off base. If a breeder responsibly finds a nice home for a well-brought-up adult dog that she kept as a puppy to breed but that didn’t turn out, when it grew up, to be suitable for breeding, that is not ‘dumping,’ and the new owner did not “rescue it.” Dumping is putting a dog in a shelter or turning it loose instead of finding a home for it, and rescuing is taking in a dog dumped in a shelter, abused, or abandoned on the streets. Would you rather that the breeder kept the dog and bred it even though it was not suitable for breeding? Would you rather that the dog live on in a multidog household where it gets little attention because the owner is busy with the other dogs, rather than have the owner do what is best for the dog itself, find it its own home where it can have someone to take care of to give it a purpose in life, someone who focuses on it alone? Do you know how hard it is to give away a dog that you love but that you know would have a better life somewhere else? In my book, that is responsible ownership.

Thursday March 4, 2010, 8:43 am
Chana, have you talked to anyone who actually had their dog debarked? Do you even know what debarking is for? I assure you, it is NOT done “because they expect the animals to fit in to our lifestyles rather than accepting the animals for what they are.” People don’t spend that kind of money and take the risks of anesthesia for that reason. It is done is to satisfy the neighbors. Not everyone likes animals, and intolerance about animals is becoming accepted and common in our crowded and urban society. But you can’t entirely blame them: Some dogs just can’t stop barking. There are ways to get around all the tools desperate owners try: shock collars and citronella collars can have batteries or reservoirs drained, noise sensors get set off by the wrong noises, and no one can stop dogs’ barking when they are not home. Most dogs aren’t smart enough to figure all these things out, but the really determined barkers often do. And then there are the anonymous death threats that a friend of mine’s dog received, and several dogs I’ve heard of in Massachusetts that died from poisoned meat thrown over the fence after receiving death threats for barking. It’s not the dog owners that have the “screwed up values,” it’s the non-dog-owners.

Thursday March 4, 2010, 8:48 am
Jordan, you just don’t understand what you’ve done. You don’t understand what debarking is for. You’re going to be responsible for dogs being killed or dumped in shelters. You’re going to be able to go to bed at night knowing that elderly people living in high rises will have to give up their beloved, small, noisy dogs and put them in shelters where they will be bounced around from shelter to shelter or home to home until they have to be euthanized. You will have taken away the last hope of pet owners who have tried everything to keep their dog quiet, but the condo association or Dog Officer still says they have to go. And it’s going to be your fault. You have helped the people who don’t want pets to be allowed in our society to make it one step harder for people to have pets.

Thursday March 4, 2010, 9:15 am
Bonnie. Everything you say is wrong. You know the facts, devocalized animals end up in shelters like any other. And I've personally met a man with a devocalized cat. Oh, and you're bringing that senior housing thing up again. We polled most of the senior housing in the state and NONE have ever forced a senior to leave because of barking, none.