HB 344: Devocalization law could harm more than it helps
By Beth Coughlin, Boston Dog Laws Examiner
Only July 14th the Massachusetts State House of Representatives will be holding a committee meeting regarding House Bill 344 (HB344): An Act Prohibiting the Devocalization of Dogs and Cats.
On the surface, many dog-lovers may say "good law".
When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.
Certain breeds, including shetland sheep dogs and several breeds of terriers are high-alert dogs. Regardless of the training methods you use: positive reinforcement, punishment, desensitization, homopathy and even medication, they will continue to bark in a manner that can cause nuisance dog complaints.
Likewise, some neighbors will opt to complain even if a dog's behavior is below the threshhold set by nuisance dog laws.
This law does not view the potential risk of being euthanized due to nuisance complaints a "legitimate health risk". While many dog owners would agree that there are some people too ready to devocalize, this is a topic that should be handled from an education, not legislation approach.
While all other options should be explored prior to resorting to devocalization, better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark then in a shelter wondering if "tomorrow is the day."
Contact your representative and let them know this is a bad law when you look at the larger picture. In the sheep's clothing of animal welfare, animal rights activists have advocated turning a legitimate veterinary procedure into a Felony Offense.
For more info: Full text of HB344
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This post is almost too weak to respond to, but the seriousness of the issue begs one nonetheless.
You state an animal is "better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark than in a shelter wondering if 'tomorrow is the day.'" It's not entirely clear whether "smaller, raspy bark" is intentional euphemism or true ignorance on your part. It would appear you know next to nothing about this procedure or its results, but I suspect this is calculated obfuscation.
Another paragraph reads: "... has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking."
You're really working the death by barking angle here, aren't you? Tell me, do you have any clue how many devocalization procedures are performed to "save a dog's life" that would have been euthanized without it, as opposed to reasons of convenience, or worse: to serve the purposes of criminals and disreputable breeders? People with positions like yours use vague, insipid phrases like "all other options should be explored," when you know full well if you've looked into it that all other options are not explored; the "education rather than legislation," approach you espouse is obviously not working.
Have you yourself launched a single initiative regarding said education? Any ideas? You present none in this hollow piece of work.
You state "When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking."
Dig deeper? Not a lot of depth in your prose here, my friend. One wonders if you did any research on this horrific practice at all. If you truly had such an aversion to pointless legislation, you would be writing articles about the nuisance laws themselves, not the extremely questionable operation associated with them.
History does not lack for gruesome and unethical medical procedures which people later recognized as wrongful and inhumane. Incidentally, I suspect you meant homeopathy, not "homopathy."
Tristan L. Sullivan
Post a Comment