|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:40 am
I was horrified to hear that some people do this to their pets! Please sign. "Help stop a painful and unnecessary animal surgery. "Convenience devocalization" cuts away an animal's vocal chords in a painful and even dangerous procedure to quiet dogs — and even cats — for mere convenience. Massachusetts legislators now have an opportunity to end this unnecessary suffering. Use your voice to help animals keep theirs.
Urge Massachusetts to pass H.B. 344, ending
convenience animal devocalization.
Sign the petition today."
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:34 am
What if someone had a yappy little dog. Let's say they lost their job, got a job paying a lot less, and had to take a cheap little apartment. The dog was so loud that neighbors complained. The owner read books on training dogs but could not stop it. They went to obedience classes and could not stop it. The landlord said they'd be out if the owner didn't stop it. The owner was then faced with the choice of surgery, living on the streets, or giving up the dog. In that difficult situation I would say the surgery would probably the best and most humane option.
Would that be convenience? Or necessity?
I don't think devocalization should be done often. I don't think it should be done before other options are explored. But I think it could be helpful for some situations. And I believe that is how it is used anyway, for a few extreme situations. Because I have never known or even heard of anyone who actually had this procedure done on their pet.
So I don't usually sign petitions against devocalization because I don't think I want to see it completely outlawed if it could potentially save an animal from being homeless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:28 pm
If you had an out of control child who was loud, destructive, and causing problems with your neighbors, would you A.) get him psychological help (obedience training) B.) commit him to an institution (which I guess you can compare to a shelter) or C.) give him a lobotomy (comparison to devocalization).
When you get a pet, you should be ready to face the consequences of having said pet. I always compare raising a pet as raising a child, because like a child, you will be responsible for training, doctor bills, food and housing, toys, and spending enough time to keep it happy. Sure, there are times when financial problems get the best of us, and seeing animals as lower beings, are the ones that have to be sacrificed. But when your child becomes a financial burden, often families will allow them to live with a relative until things get back in order. Finding a suitable home for the animal would be a hundred times better than putting it under a painful, unnecessary, ridiculous surgery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:48 pm
That's a good analogy!
I think psychological help/obedience training should come first. But what happens in extreme cases where psychological help doesn't improve the situation? I think that's where it turns into a pickle.
I'm torn on whether surgery is better or worse than finding a new home. I mean, if you told me right now that I had to either have surgery or move out of my house, leave my partner, and live with a stranger, I'm not sure which one I'd choose. But I'm kind of leaning towards the surgery at the moment.
And let's not forget that a lot of parents with unruly children do medicate them, which you could compare to a chemical lobotomy. And medicating the dog is another option that I hadn't considered in my first post. Another less than ideal alternative if you ask me. And I personally think I'd still rather have the surgery than leave my home and family indefinitely or be drugged up for the rest of my life.
So when obedience training doesn't work, I'd say the owner is left with choosing the lesser of the evils (surgery, drugs, a shelter/finding another home, heck some people might even consider euthanasia). Euthanasia is the worst option in my opinion. But the other three are all sort of on equal grounds. It probably depends on how much anxiety the animal has when away from the owner, if the owner knows anyone who could take the animal, if the shelters in the area are high kill, low kill, or no kill, etc. So I'd say the owner should get to decide. I don't think we should take away an option that could potentially be better for or less stressful for that particular animal than his other options would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
