The consequences can be, and often are, horrific.  Breathing can be a struggle for devocalized animals because of airway obstruction.3  The dog can choke on food, inhale vomit into her lungs, choke, gag, cough.  Scar tissue buildup can require multiple procedures.

The procedure itself can cause severe blood loss and infection.

It has been reported that a devocalized animal is more likely to be dumped or surrendered to a shelter, adding to the already serious overpopulation problem.  Indeed, it has been reported also that in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, shelters received many devocalized animals.4

There is much more to be said about the medical aspects of devocalization, but just what we’ve said so far should suffice to demonstrate that devocalization is at once cruel, brutal, dangerous—let alone immoral in its treatment of animals as if they were simply inanimate objects to be used and abused by humans without regard to their ability to experience pain.

So let’s turn for a moment to the question of why any human being would visit devocalization pain and suffering on a defenseless animal.

Although devocalization is almost always performed for the convenience of the animals’ “owners,” their motivations differ.

For example, large-scale breeders even in rural areas have an interest in keeping down the noise level of the countless dogs they use as puppy factories.  Similarly, backyard breeders have to be concerned with neighbors.5

Sometimes, devocalization is a compromise between children who want a pet, and parents who don’t want loud vocalization.

Sled dog racers’ huskies, especially in a pack, are prone to bark loudly and often.  That is seen, by some, as bad for business.

Handlers of fighting dogs certainly have an interest in keeping them as quiet as possible.

Whatever the reasons, devocalization is inimical to the animal’s health, unnatural, cruel and yet another brutal example of humans seeing canines and other animals not only as inanimate personal property like cars, which is bad enough, and devocalization as nothing more sinister than simply fixing a flat tire.

Yet by devocalizing a dog (and destroying the vocal cords of other animals) the veterinarian’s knife assaults not only the animal, but its ability to communicate.  Putting aside body language, the only other way an animal can communicate is through vocalization.  Sever that, literally and figuratively, and the animal has no means to convey its mental state to other animals and humans.  It lacks the ability to control the tone, intensity and frequency of its voice.  Lacking that, not communicated will be fear, aggression, danger, pain—everything the animal “knows.”  To get a sense of what devocalization means to an animal, one need only ask a mute human being what he’s deprived of because of his inability to speak.

The ASPCA has explained the surgical “solution” to dog and cat behavioral problems this way:

Barking, scratching and spraying are natural canine and feline communication signals, although some companion animal guardians (or their neighbors) see them as serious behavior problems. When pet guardians are in danger of losing their homes, their spouses or their furnishings, they may seek out speedy surgical solutions, such as debarking, declawing and olfactory tractotomy (severing the olfactory tracts from the brain to eliminate urine spraying). Although behavior modification takes time and may not be 100 percent effective, considerable health risks and pain are often associated with the surgeries. Additionally, declawing removes one of the cat’s primary defenses, and olfactory tractotomy destroys the cat’s sense of smell, which may affect appetite.

Despite the brutality of the devocalization procedure and its unnatural consequences, even the ASPCA, in a typical national humane society compromise, countenances it under certain circumstances:

The ASPCA does not recommend surgery to eliminate a problem behavior unless the animal’s guardian has already attempted—unsuccessfully—to resolve the issue using humane behavior modification techniques and/or followed a treatment protocol set up by an animal behavior specialist (certified applied animal behaviorist, veterinary behaviorist or experienced behavior consultant). The ASPCA recommends surgery only if the animal is at risk of losing his home or his life, and the surgeries should be performed by a licensed veterinarian who is experienced in the specific procedure. The ASPCA never condones the debarking of attack dogs to add to the element of surprise or to evade law enforcement.

If behavior modification fails, the alleged dilemma between leaving a dog’s vocal cords intact versus her not having a home or being euthanized, is a false alternative. 

If behavior modification fails, instead of cutting a dog’s vocal chords the only humane thing to do is place her in a home or other environment where  vocalization is not a problem, and perhaps even welcomed.  For example, on a ranch or farm.  That way, everyone wins: the “owner” is free of the barking, the dog’s nature is not changed and her body is not brutalized, her vocal cords remain intact, and a new “owner” benefits from the animal’s ability to vocalize.  If that’s not possible, the custodian will have to live with the problem.  After all, it was the custodian who voluntarily chose to acquire the dog, and with that acquisition came acceptance of the moral responsibility to treat her humanely.

Indeed, behavior modification can usually be effective, so a dog won’t have to be relocated.  Recently, ISAR conducted an interview of noted veterinarian and animal behaviorist Dr. Nicholas Dodman whose conclusion was that devocalization is brutalizing, injurious, unnecessary and painful.   (See the sections entitled Aspects of Devocalization: “Behavioral” and “Ethical”).

Doubtless because of the efficacy of behavior modification, devocalization is  prohibited in the United Kingdom and in some twenty other nations throughout the world.6

In the United States, however, this brutal procedure is rarely prohibited.

But it must be.  In every state and territory and, for that matter, throughout the world.