Devocalization still needs help!
Please call your State (Beacon Hill) Senator AND your vet immediately.
Mass. Veterinary Medical Assn. has mobilized its membership
to lobby against the devocalization bill today--
telling vets the bill would hurt them!
WRONG: House Bill 344 would simply protect helpless dogs and cats
from having their vocal cords cut solely to stifle their voices.
Only vets who perform this cruel procedure would be affected by the law.
Call your State (Beacon Hill) Senator again: Say you want House Bill 344 to pass quickly as written. Find your senator at 1-800-462-8683 or enter your address at www.wheredoivotema.com and look for your Senate in General court.
Call your vet too: Ask that s/he join the more than 200 compassionate veterinarians in Massachusetts who have endorsed House Bill 344.
Let your vet know: A simple certificate stating the reason for legal, medically necessary vocal cord surgery would not compromise vets or clients as MVMA says. Without it, vets could devocalize under the radar, cruel business as usual.
What reflects badly on vets is surgery performed solely to stifle an animal's voice--and the sanctioning of such an inhumane practice by lobbying against legislation that would end it.
Just the Facts
Because House Bill 344 allows vocal cord surgery only to treat disease, injury or birth defects, it requires that a simple certificate stating the medical reason for vocal cord surgery be filed after surgery is performed. This is in line with other MA laws requiring vets to issue and file certificates.
MVMA is urging vets to defeat the bill based on its misinterpretation of this provision. Clarification will be filed by Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets.
The association exists to protect members' business interests. Apparently, enough vets devocalize for MVMA to allocate lobbying and financial resources to kill House Bill 344.
Meet devocalized dogs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZPoyuMw870
Hear what the experts have to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ADbMoX4aw&feature=related
Mass. Veterinary Medical Assn. has mobilized its membership
to lobby against the devocalization bill today--
telling vets the bill would hurt them!
WRONG: House Bill 344 would simply protect helpless dogs and cats
from having their vocal cords cut solely to stifle their voices.
Only vets who perform this cruel procedure would be affected by the law.
Call your State (Beacon Hill) Senator again: Say you want House Bill 344 to pass quickly as written. Find your senator at 1-800-462-8683 or enter your address at www.wheredoivotema.com and look for your Senate in General court.
Call your vet too: Ask that s/he join the more than 200 compassionate veterinarians in Massachusetts who have endorsed House Bill 344.
Let your vet know: A simple certificate stating the reason for legal, medically necessary vocal cord surgery would not compromise vets or clients as MVMA says. Without it, vets could devocalize under the radar, cruel business as usual.
What reflects badly on vets is surgery performed solely to stifle an animal's voice--and the sanctioning of such an inhumane practice by lobbying against legislation that would end it.
Just the Facts
Because House Bill 344 allows vocal cord surgery only to treat disease, injury or birth defects, it requires that a simple certificate stating the medical reason for vocal cord surgery be filed after surgery is performed. This is in line with other MA laws requiring vets to issue and file certificates.
MVMA is urging vets to defeat the bill based on its misinterpretation of this provision. Clarification will be filed by Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets.
The association exists to protect members' business interests. Apparently, enough vets devocalize for MVMA to allocate lobbying and financial resources to kill House Bill 344.
Meet devocalized dogs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZPoyuMw870
Hear what the experts have to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ADbMoX4aw&feature=related
posted by Jaime | 9:42 AM
3 Comments:
Devocalization is a misnomer. The surgical procedure is more correctly termed "bark softening" as dogs can still bark following this procedure. Those who claim the the dog's vocal cords are removed are either uneducated or intentionally misleading. There is little risk aside from the "normal" risks involved with ANY surgery that requires anesthesia and in most cases, less risk is involved.
Researchers tell us that barking is NOT a main means of canine communication. In fact, wild canid rarely bark past adolescence, suggesting that barking we see in our companion dogs can be linked to domestication. Wild canids rely much more heavily on their other senses and communication by smell, body language and a series of yips and growls that bark softened dogs are quite capable of making.
Gary Patronek, DVM, did a study back in the mid to late 90's that investigated the behavioral reasons behind dog surrenders. He reported that 41% of those dogs surrendered for behavioral reasons were surrendered because of excessive barking.
Those who support the Massachusetts ban on bark softening claim that the procedure is used by those who are too lazy to train their dogs properly. Unfortunately, I would guess that the HUGE majority of these people have little or no actual experience dealing with dogs that are excessive barkers; there are those dogs that simply do not respond to conventional methods. And I have to ask, how humane is a collar that delivers an electrical shock to the dog's bare skin each time the dog barks? Or sprays citronella in the dog's face?
HB344, like many bills across the country, has a darker force motivating it and that is the animal rights machine that pushes "anti-dog" laws cleverly disguised as "humane legislation". This bill, being pushed by the animal rights group, Humane Society of the United States, is about making it more difficult for people to keep companion animals. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle stated in Animal People News, "We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
The people of Massachusetts are being led to the edge of the cliff like lemmings. The ones who will suffer will be those animals who lose their lives because this option is no longer available.
Wow - I have never personally commented on someone else's opinion but I am glad Gael is not in our BDO Meetup Group and hope she doesn't have a dog...if I had more time I would happy to dismiss the narrow minded interpretation that has some perverse agenda. Excessive barking can be solved through humane training and behavioral modification. And what the hell is the use of comparing wild canines to domesticated pets??? This simply reinforces BDO's mission.
Thank you, Christopher. for showing us that proponents of this bill have little or poor knowledge of dog training. Not all dogs respond to conventional training methods and I sincerely hope you don't equate humane training with electric show anti bark collars and/or citronella collars.
Tell us, please.... how many rescue dogs will you take in? Dogs that are surrendered to shelters because they bark too much? Or are you one of those who merely talks the talk without any true knowledge of what you are talking about?
As for comparing wild canids to domesticated pets, where do you think our dogs came from, CaveMart?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home