Devocalization

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]

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.

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.

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.

Several reasons are offered in favor of devocalization: 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, and dogs that previously had to be kept indoors to avoid antagonizing neighbors can be allowed outdoors.[3] Further, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.