5 Year Gaol Term Now For Debarking - No Exceptions

[Steve]

Dogs and cats have a voice under new Massachusetts law

Digg This

Tweet This

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Facebook

Related News

Scenarios: What could happen with Arizona's immigration law

8:10am EDT

Asset manager earnings up on year, flows mixed

Mon, Jul 19 2010

Massachusetts restaurants hope for strong summer

Wed, Jun 23 2010

Related Topics

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66J3...pe=domesticNews

U.S. »

By Lauren Keiper

BOSTON | Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:09pm EDT

(Reuters) - Massachusetts on Wednesday will become the first state to ban the surgery that devocalizes dogs and cats, which many animal rights advocates see as a cruel and unnecessary procedure.

Under the new law, anyone in the state who cuts or removes an animal's vocal chords for nonmedical reasons may be punished by fines and up to five years in prison.

The law, signed by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in April, is dubbed Logan's Law after a dog that underwent the controversial surgery but was later abandoned.

"To take the voice of an animal would be the equivalent of taking a person's voice or a person's ability to communicate," Brian Adams, spokesman for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), told Reuters.

Supporters of the new measure say it is more important for pet owners to understand the needs and motivations behind their pets' making noise.

The silencing surgery may suit the needs of the owner, but not the health and welfare of the animal.

Devocalization, known as "debarking" when performed on dogs, is largely done by commercial breeders for their own convenience, according to the Animal Law Coalition, an advocacy group based in New York.

Some of those opposing the bill argued that more animals would be surrendered to shelters or abandoned if the surgery is banned, but Adams said they are not expecting a influx of new animals.

In 2009, the MSPCA, a non-profit animal welfare organization, did not have a single dog or cat surrendered because it was too noisy, Adams said.

Inspired by the Massachusetts law, a U.S. Congressman introduced a bill in May to support states that pass similar legislation to ban devocalization.

H.R. 5422, sponsored by C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-MD, would authorize grants of up to $1 million for the prevention of cruelty to animals. It was referred to a House Agriculture subcommittee in June.

[GeckoTree]

People will have to drive to another state to have it done, oh dear.

[Ashka]

People will have to drive to another state to have it done, oh dear.

Either that or the dog will be put down by the owner or the neighbors.

[angelsun]

Once again, the motivations to prevent back yard butchery vet proceedures on the mid west puppy mills, has created this situation where someone with cranky neighbours has the power to have a dog removed permanently due to noise laws because of the inability to perform, in correct situations, an easy proceedure.

As for the comment about removing the sound of the animal removes their ability to communicate is the same arguement that is given by those in favour of anti tail docking stating that the lack of a tail being able to wag, stifles the dogs ability to communicate. Sheer utter bullshit, but this is where the dog world is coming to I'm afraid.

Problem is plain and simple, the butcher jobs to debark will still be done...the sterile vet scenario has been removed, so now we go back to antiquated anesthetics and filthy enviroments that will spread disease and risk lives. Chock one up for the so called animal rights activists....they claim to have the animals best interests at heart, but clearly this is just another case of fanatics at work in my opinion. Hug your pets, cause there is coming a time in the not so distant future where we won't be permitted to own them.

[Souff]

Angelsun, you have said it all. And sadly, the backyarders will continue to do it and the silly owners who allow them to do it will be the ones who cop the rap, get themselves out on an appeal or such like. I cant seeing any lessons being learned here.

These procedures are for vets to do, and the local authorities SHOULD be making sure that the vets are allowed to do it.

There are a lot of dog hating people in this world and the first thing that will set them off is a barking dog, and the next thing that set them off is when they see dog poo somewhere.

If dog lovers want to live in urban areas with their dogs, then having the vocal noise turned down a notch, with a qualified veterinarian doing the procedure is NOT CRUEL. Such a procedure can ultimately save a dog from being PTS.

But I am preaching to the choir here and yes, give your dogs an extra hug ...... the lunatics are in charge of the law making asylums.

Souff

[Christina]

So if the dog is a chronic barker, the neighbours complain to the council, all efforts have been made to stop the problem. the dog cant be rehomed because of the problem, the owners cant afford to move to acreage what do they suggest ?

Tie its mouth up or euthanise it ?

How bloody stupid. Death is better than a simple procedure if performed by a vet ?

[becks]

It's banned in the UK and you don't see dogs being dumped because they bark

[KitKat]

Wow...last time i had a chat with the Council about barking dogs i was told the final scenario was either get rid of the dog, pts the dog, or get the dog debarked.

I personally don't have an issue with debarking as long as it's done properly by a vet etc. Another thought...has that state banned the de-clawing of cats? I have a much bigger issue with that procedure.

[ncarter]

It's Jail NOT gaol. I swear the word gaol is a a slur on the english language

[Monah]

It's Jail NOT gaol. I swear the word gaol is a a slur on the english language

Um no!! It's GAOL!!!

this is ENGLISH! from the norman french word gaole,(invaders of england) that became the ENGLISH gayole,

that the AMERICANS butchered (as they have most english words) to JAIL, which is a SLUR on the english language.

[poodlefan]

I could be drug dealer or shoot someone and probably get a lesser sentence than that.

[raz]

It's Jail NOT gaol. I swear the word gaol is a a slur on the english language

It's gaol. You're Australian, not American.

[poodlefan]

Edited July 25, 2010 by poodlefan

[Crisovar]

It's banned in the UK and you don't see dogs being dumped because they bark

Barking dogs is the most common complaint dealt with by Animal Control Officers daily.

You can be forced to remove your dog or it can be seized if you cannot resolve the problem.

Neighborhood disputes over barking dogs are common, dogs are surrendered to the pound, baited by neighbours, released from their yards etc.

I agree totally with Angelsuns post.

[Curlybert]

Off topic, but I'm a pedant. This is from the ANU Ozwords site:

"Gaol and jail are variant forms of the same word. They came into Middle English from two slightly different sources. Gaol found its way to England as gayhole (no jokes please ) from Northern or Norman French; jail came over from Central or Parisian French as jaiole etc. Thus in 1275 or so in a tract called The Pains of Hell we find: ‘In helle is a deop [deep] gayhole’. And in about 1300 in the Northumbrian poem Cursor Mundi we are told: ‘A sargant sent he to Jaiole’. There we have the two forms well nigh neck and neck.

Gaol, the descendant of gayhole, has survived to this day only because it was the preferred form in English statutes and so forth over the centuries. It is now far less common than jail and jail is very much to be preferred: jail is eminently reasonable; gaol is puzzling and perverse. (So perverse, indeed, that there is a very long history of the word being spelled goal!) Though both forms are written, only jail is spoken, the hard g of gaol having grudgingly given up the ghost many centuries ago. That is why gaol has the same pronunciation as jail."

[Monah]

Yep, but(norman ie, viking) northern french (where a lot of english originated after 1066) has gaole (cage), changed to middle english as gayole . jaiole,and jeole are from french which was only the parisian area which was france.

I guess some prefer jail and otrhers gaol, but gaol is not a slur on the english language, Melvynn Bragg wrote a fascinating and excellent book on the origins of english, I prefer to use a known reference rather than an internet article.

as far as the debarking goes, ridiculous sentence. It's so stupid I can't even be bothered to comment on it properly.

[Curlybert]

My source, Ozwords, is published by the Australian National University. It's the newsletter of the Australian National Dictionary Centre, and features articles by Centre staff and guest contributors on Australian English. It's not just any old internet article and, I suspect, has more authority than Melvyn Bragg!

But we do agree about debarking!

Edited July 26, 2010 by Curlybert

[poodlefan]

Nice to see some intellectual discussion breaking out.

[Souff]

Indeed.

gaol, jail, clink, brig, slammer ...... they all mean the same thing no matter what their origins or what country they are used in

PRISON

[Steve]

All I know is when I was at school if I spelt it jail I got it marked wrong and Ive got 8 kids two of which are at school still and 13 grandkids - most of whom are at school and the Australian school system still calls it gaol.