This Act of Cruelty is Happening Everywhere.
It's Time to End It in New York.
About the Legislation to Prohibit Devocalization of Dogs and Cats
A3431B was introduced in the New York State Assembly and S6167A in the Senate after a similar law was enacted in Massachusetts in 2010, passing that state's House 155-1 and the Senate unanimously.
This humane legislation prohibits devocalization, vocal cord surgery performed solely to alter or remove a dog’s or cat’s voice at great risk to the animal. Vocal cord surgery to treat a physical ailment causing the animal medical harm would remain legal. This is humane legislation!
Those who perform the procedure as well as those who cause it to be performed would be held in violation of the law. Cruelty should be illegal at anyone's hand, and most people--including compassionate veterinarians--agree that devocalization is cruel.
Live in New York State? Act now to protect animals! Click here to learn how you can help pass this important legislation in five minutes or less--without spending a dime.
Live elsewhere? You can help by sharing this information. Post it to your Facebook wall. Tweet it. Email it to friends and family who care about animals. Get the word out: Cutting a dog's or cat's vocal cords by anyone, by any means, for any purpose except to treat a physical ailment causing the animal medical harm is an act of cruelty and must not be allowed.
Lead Sponsors of This Legislation
Friends of Animals
Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets
Lead Endorsers
American Humane Association
Animal Law Coalition
Animal Advocates of Western New York
Best Friends Animal Society
Delta Society
Dogs In Need Everywhere
Empty Cages Collective
Friends of Animals
Humane Society of the United States
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
In Defense of Animals
New York Animal Rights Alliance America
New York City Bar
New York Council of Dog Owner Groups
New York State Humane Association
Brian Shapiro, Ulster County Legislator (Ret.)
Social Workers Advancing the Human-Animal Bond
Joined By
Animal Shelters, Rescue Groups, Concerned Veterinarians and Animal Care Professionals throughout New York State. Make sure your vet is among them!
Why is This Legislation Needed?
Prohibiting devocalization, whether by a puppy mill or AKC breeder, a pet owner or a "hobbyist," protects people and communities as well as animals. Here's why:
Devocalization Presents Risks to Animals
Animals are subjected to serious risks regardless of the veterinarian’s skill, the surgical route (through the oral cavity or an incision in the neck), and the instrument used, including laser.
Devocalization Presents Risks to People
People are at risk too, when an animal’s vocal communication is compromised.
Devocalization Presents Risks to Communities
Devocalization may create public safety risks and burden taxpayer-funded resources such as animal control and municipal pounds.
Allowing devocalization for the sake of the small minority of animals who otherwise may be given up for barking and meowing would put all dogs and cats--and our communities--at risk.
Clever Loopholes That Would Let Animal Suffering Continue
Lobbies that profit from devocalization want to keep it accessible for their own benefit by defeating the legislation outright or riddling it with loopholes such as these:
Why Would "Allowable as a Last Resort" Make the Law Unenforceable?
NO vet can determine whether a client has pursued all humane recourse, and some won't ask. Even receipts for dog training don’t mean the owner followed the protocol consistently or at all. There are many nonsurgical options for managing behavior. But they take time, effort and consistency. Devocalization is easy for the owner, profitable for the veterinarian.
NO vet can know if a client provides responsible animal care either. Animals who don’t receive sufficient companionship, exercise and mental stimulation will act out, often through persistent vocalization.
Sometimes animals vocalize because they're in discomfort. And unaltered animals are apt to express hormone-driven excitement or aggression by barking or meowing tenaciously. Cutting vocal cords doesn't change a dog's or cat's needs; it just allows the owner to ignore them, leaving the animal in distress. That layers cruelty on top of cruelty!
Why Would Replacing the Current Exemption With "Allowable for Medical Necessity" Make the Law Unenforceable?
"Medical necessity" is a loophole unless defined as treatment of a physical illness, disease, injury or congenital abnormality causing the animal physical harm, as A3431B/S6167 were originally and are currently written. Without this definition, "medical necessity" is open to interpretation by veterinarians, who have a financial interest in performing this procedure.
For example, pro-devocalization lobbies disingenuously claim that without devocalization, a "talkative" animal would be euthanized; hence it is medically necessary. That argument is baseless: There are many humane options between the extremes of devocalization and death.
Ironically, devocalization can increase the risk of euthanasia or surrender when owners can't or won't pay for surgery to remove scar tissue blocking the animal's airway, a common and potentially fatal consequence of devocalization. Or when the animal, whose surgically muffled, attention-seeking bark or meow is easy to ignore, acts out in other ways, such as by house-soiling or biting.
Why Specify “Physical” Illness or Disease in the Legislation’s Sole Exemption?
Pro-devocalization lobbies have tried to amend devocalization bans so they allow “behavioral” illness as a reason to cut a dog’s or cat’s vocal cords. That is an absurd attempt to keep this act of cruelty accessible for their own benefit. Barking and meowing are not pathology.
They are normal communication that only becomes troublesome when an owner ignores the animal’s needs (such as exercise and companionship); keeps too many animals; inadvertently rewards persistent vocalization; or doesn’t train the animal correctly, consistently or at all. While it’s true that some breeds are more vocal than others, it is the height of irresponsibility and cruelty to purchase, adopt or breed these animals only to cut their vocal cords.
Why Would Replacing the Words "Dogs and Cats" With "Pets" or "Companion Animals" Make the Law Unenforceable?
Breeding dogs, show dogs and sled dogs--who are devocalized so they'll be quiet in kennels or the show ring--are not considered pets. Changing the bill's language from "dogs and cats" to "pets" or "companion animals" would leave these animals without any protection.
Why Would Exempting Veterinarians From Penalties Kill The Legislation?
It is primarily vets who perform devocalization. This proposal, which says devocalization is illegal unless performed by a veterinarian, would effectively kill the legislation.
The proposal is also ethically offensive. Cutting vocal cords to stifle or remove a dog's or cat's voice is an act of animal cruelty. And cruelty at anyone's hand should be illegal and punishable. In fact, devocalization by anyone, including licensed vets, is prohibited in Massachusetts and throughout Europe with good reason:
Board-certified veterinary surgeons have testified that devocalization is a dangerous procedure no matter who performs it, including skilled and experienced veterinarians. Because there is no benefit for the animal, devocalization isn't just risky; it is inhumane.
Why Would Allowing "End Owners" (Pet Owners) to Have Animals Devocalized Make the Law Unenforceable--and Worse?
Under this proposal, only people and entities that breed or sell animals would not be allowed to have them devocalized.
That would make the law unenforceable: Most New York breeders are not licensed. Hence, there is no certain way to identify those who wish to skirt the law by claiming they're “just” pet owners.
Worse, this would legitimize and encourage an act of cruelty. By telling pet owners devocalization is acceptable, the law could increase its incidence. Why?
Cutting vocal cords is obviously easier for the owner (and more profitable for the vet) than the responsible selection, housing, care and training of dogs and cats that benefit our communities as well animals. And devocalization is relatively cheap—unlike the post-devocalization reparative surgery needed to relieve the animal's suffering or prevent a terrible death. That can cost $2,000 or more. What do you think happens to devocalized animals whose owners can't or won't pay this price?
If passed with this loophole, breed fanciers would be able to keep "talkative" breeds in apartments or outdoors, and simply have their animals' vocal cords cut; neighbors won't know whether a dog is happy to see them or is warning them to stay away. A wagging tail could mean either! Animal hoarders and those breeding dogs or cats where it is not allowed would be able to hide their activities.
Why Would Applying the Law Only to Puppy Mills Harm Animals?
It's simple: Puppy mills are just a small segment of those who have animals devocalized. Devocalization is also ordered by AKC and backyard breeders, dog show exhibitors, sled dog racers and occasionally uninformed or selfish pet owners. A law this narrow would leave the majority of dogs and cats unprotected--and sanction an act of cruelty. If an action is cruel, as surgically stifling an animal's voice unequivocally is, no one should be allowed to perform or cause it to be performed.
Claims and Facts
Claim: No veterinarian would devocalize a dog or cat. It’s not happening in New York.
Fact: Devocalization is more common than most people, including vets, realize—even in New York. It's a cruelty that is easy to hide. Unlike cropped ears, docked tails and declawed paws, vocal cords are not visible. People assume devocalized animals have laryngitis. It's hard to fathom that someone actually had their vocal cords cut.
New York veterinarians have provided statements documenting the previously devocalized dogs they have treated or had to euthanize for complications of this needless surgery.
New York animal shelters and rescue groups have provided statements describing the devocalized dogs relinquished to them.
Some of their statements are included here.
Claim: If performed correctly, devocalization is a benign procedure.
Fact: Veterinarians board-certified in surgery and anesthesiology are among the many who have testified there is no benign way to devocalize an animal. Surgical risks and complications are present regardless of the vet’s skill; the instrument used, including laser; and the surgical route, through the mouth or an incision in the neck. Even a small amount of scarring in the throat, a normal part of healing after any surgery, can cause the animal to die horribly from choking, aspiration pneumonia or heat stroke.
Claim: If devocalization is outlawed, it will be performed by those not licensed to provide veterinary care.
Fact: Where devocalization is legal, that’s already happening—just as ear cropping and tail docking are sometimes performed by persons other than licensed vets. But even in the hands of competent veterinarians and veterinary surgeons, animals are suffering and dying as a result of devocalization. There is no benign way to perform this procedure. None.
Vets who devocalize claim outlawing devocalization will subject animals to risks. Reality check: Cutting vocal cord tissue is dangerous performed by anyone--including veterinary surgeons--using any means, even laser. When it's done just to stifle the voice, that is inhumane.
Claim: Some breeds are born to bark and meow persistently; training won’t resolve that.
Fact: Even genetically based behavior is influenced by environment. According to animal behavior experts like master dog trainer Anthony Jerone, founder of the New York City Transit Authority K-9 Unit, there is no such thing as an untrainable dog. Veterinary behaviorists say medication can facilitate training. However, if persistent vocalization is a concern, why purchase or breed animals in whom this trait is cultivated, like Sheltie dogs and Siamese cats, only to have their vocal cords cut? Putting these breeds or groups of any animal where the sound of their voices won’t be tolerated is irresponsible; devocalizing them to compensate is abjectly cruel.
Claim: If pet owners can’t devocalize, more animals will be surrendered and euthanized.
Fact: Devocalized animals are surrendered and convenience euthanized like any other, for the same reasons. Devocalization doesn't prevent house-soiling, biting or other "nuisance" behaviors, and it doesn't improve an owner's financial, health or marital problems. And because complications such as scar tissue that impairs breathing and swallowing,are so costly to treat, devocalization can increase the risk of surrender or convenience euthanasia.
Devocalization also does not prevent the surrender of breeding and show animals who are not profitable to their owners, those too old to breed or who are not marketable. Where do they go then? Those who aren't euthanized or purchased--with or without disclosure by the breeder--often land in financially strapped, nonprofit animal shelters and rescue groups.
Copyright 2012, Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets. All Rights Reserved.
A3431B was introduced in the New York State Assembly and S6167A in the Senate after a similar law was enacted in Massachusetts in 2010, passing that state's House 155-1 and the Senate unanimously.
This humane legislation prohibits devocalization, vocal cord surgery performed solely to alter or remove a dog’s or cat’s voice at great risk to the animal. Vocal cord surgery to treat a physical ailment causing the animal medical harm would remain legal. This is humane legislation!
Those who perform the procedure as well as those who cause it to be performed would be held in violation of the law. Cruelty should be illegal at anyone's hand, and most people--including compassionate veterinarians--agree that devocalization is cruel.
Live in New York State? Act now to protect animals! Click here to learn how you can help pass this important legislation in five minutes or less--without spending a dime.
Live elsewhere? You can help by sharing this information. Post it to your Facebook wall. Tweet it. Email it to friends and family who care about animals. Get the word out: Cutting a dog's or cat's vocal cords by anyone, by any means, for any purpose except to treat a physical ailment causing the animal medical harm is an act of cruelty and must not be allowed.
Lead Sponsors of This Legislation
Friends of Animals
Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets
Lead Endorsers
American Humane Association
Animal Law Coalition
Animal Advocates of Western New York
Best Friends Animal Society
Delta Society
Dogs In Need Everywhere
Empty Cages Collective
Friends of Animals
Humane Society of the United States
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
In Defense of Animals
New York Animal Rights Alliance America
New York City Bar
New York Council of Dog Owner Groups
New York State Humane Association
Brian Shapiro, Ulster County Legislator (Ret.)
Social Workers Advancing the Human-Animal Bond
Joined By
Animal Shelters, Rescue Groups, Concerned Veterinarians and Animal Care Professionals throughout New York State. Make sure your vet is among them!
Why is This Legislation Needed?
Prohibiting devocalization, whether by a puppy mill or AKC breeder, a pet owner or a "hobbyist," protects people and communities as well as animals. Here's why:
Devocalization Presents Risks to Animals
Animals are subjected to serious risks regardless of the veterinarian’s skill, the surgical route (through the oral cavity or an incision in the neck), and the instrument used, including laser.
- The animal may suffer lifelong impaired breathing and/or swallowing after being devocalized.
- The animal is exposed to serious surgical risks such as infection and blood loss.
- Some animals die an agonizing death from choking, aspiration pneumonia or heat stroke.
- Even a small amount of scar tissue, common after any surgery, can block the airway.
Devocalization Presents Risks to People
People are at risk too, when an animal’s vocal communication is compromised.
- Different barks and meows have different meanings that tell people whether the animal wants to play—or will attack. Devocalization removes or diminishes these distinctions. And that is dangerous. Here's why:
- Humans are not adept at reading animal body language, especially when the dog or cat is not their own; they need audible, unambiguous vocal cues. For example, few realize a dog’s wagging tail may be a warning to stay away, not a sign of friendliness. A senior in the park bending over to pet a frightened devocalized dog can’t possibly know its muffled, nondescript vocalizations mean “leave me alone or I’ll bite you.”
- Devocalized animals have been relinquished to shelters or sold without disclosure, often causing the new owner great hardship. Life-saving surgery to remove scar tissue that forms over the airway is very expensive, typically $2,000 or more, and may need to be repeated. Unsuspecting pet owners who buy or adopt these animals may face a devastating choice they did not anticipate: euthanasia of a beloved pet or a significant financial burden.
Devocalization Presents Risks to Communities
Devocalization may create public safety risks and burden taxpayer-funded resources such as animal control and municipal pounds.
- Cutting vocal cords doesn't teach an animal to obey as training does. Even devocalized animals may bite, soil public property, jump on children and frail elders, or run into the street, burdening municipalities far more than barking or meowing do! There are no surgeries to correct those behaviors. Responsible training, care and supervision do.
- Devocalization may lead to biting or other nuisance behaviors. Animals often vocalize persistently when they're bored, lonely, afraid or suffering other discomfort. Cutting their vocal cords doesn't change that, leaving the animal in distress. Not only is that inhumane to the animal, it is dangerous to people when the frustrated animal has little choice but to express himself/herself by biting.
- Devocalization lets hoarders and illegal breeding enterprises go undetected. And keeping many animals in an apartment or other residential setting compromises the neighborhood; breeding without any oversight compromises animals and those who purchase them.
Allowing devocalization for the sake of the small minority of animals who otherwise may be given up for barking and meowing would put all dogs and cats--and our communities--at risk.
Clever Loopholes That Would Let Animal Suffering Continue
Lobbies that profit from devocalization want to keep it accessible for their own benefit by defeating the legislation outright or riddling it with loopholes such as these:
Why Would "Allowable as a Last Resort" Make the Law Unenforceable?
NO vet can determine whether a client has pursued all humane recourse, and some won't ask. Even receipts for dog training don’t mean the owner followed the protocol consistently or at all. There are many nonsurgical options for managing behavior. But they take time, effort and consistency. Devocalization is easy for the owner, profitable for the veterinarian.
NO vet can know if a client provides responsible animal care either. Animals who don’t receive sufficient companionship, exercise and mental stimulation will act out, often through persistent vocalization.
Sometimes animals vocalize because they're in discomfort. And unaltered animals are apt to express hormone-driven excitement or aggression by barking or meowing tenaciously. Cutting vocal cords doesn't change a dog's or cat's needs; it just allows the owner to ignore them, leaving the animal in distress. That layers cruelty on top of cruelty!
Why Would Replacing the Current Exemption With "Allowable for Medical Necessity" Make the Law Unenforceable?
"Medical necessity" is a loophole unless defined as treatment of a physical illness, disease, injury or congenital abnormality causing the animal physical harm, as A3431B/S6167 were originally and are currently written. Without this definition, "medical necessity" is open to interpretation by veterinarians, who have a financial interest in performing this procedure.
For example, pro-devocalization lobbies disingenuously claim that without devocalization, a "talkative" animal would be euthanized; hence it is medically necessary. That argument is baseless: There are many humane options between the extremes of devocalization and death.
Ironically, devocalization can increase the risk of euthanasia or surrender when owners can't or won't pay for surgery to remove scar tissue blocking the animal's airway, a common and potentially fatal consequence of devocalization. Or when the animal, whose surgically muffled, attention-seeking bark or meow is easy to ignore, acts out in other ways, such as by house-soiling or biting.
Why Specify “Physical” Illness or Disease in the Legislation’s Sole Exemption?
Pro-devocalization lobbies have tried to amend devocalization bans so they allow “behavioral” illness as a reason to cut a dog’s or cat’s vocal cords. That is an absurd attempt to keep this act of cruelty accessible for their own benefit. Barking and meowing are not pathology.
They are normal communication that only becomes troublesome when an owner ignores the animal’s needs (such as exercise and companionship); keeps too many animals; inadvertently rewards persistent vocalization; or doesn’t train the animal correctly, consistently or at all. While it’s true that some breeds are more vocal than others, it is the height of irresponsibility and cruelty to purchase, adopt or breed these animals only to cut their vocal cords.
Why Would Replacing the Words "Dogs and Cats" With "Pets" or "Companion Animals" Make the Law Unenforceable?
Breeding dogs, show dogs and sled dogs--who are devocalized so they'll be quiet in kennels or the show ring--are not considered pets. Changing the bill's language from "dogs and cats" to "pets" or "companion animals" would leave these animals without any protection.
Why Would Exempting Veterinarians From Penalties Kill The Legislation?
It is primarily vets who perform devocalization. This proposal, which says devocalization is illegal unless performed by a veterinarian, would effectively kill the legislation.
The proposal is also ethically offensive. Cutting vocal cords to stifle or remove a dog's or cat's voice is an act of animal cruelty. And cruelty at anyone's hand should be illegal and punishable. In fact, devocalization by anyone, including licensed vets, is prohibited in Massachusetts and throughout Europe with good reason:
Board-certified veterinary surgeons have testified that devocalization is a dangerous procedure no matter who performs it, including skilled and experienced veterinarians. Because there is no benefit for the animal, devocalization isn't just risky; it is inhumane.
Why Would Allowing "End Owners" (Pet Owners) to Have Animals Devocalized Make the Law Unenforceable--and Worse?
Under this proposal, only people and entities that breed or sell animals would not be allowed to have them devocalized.
That would make the law unenforceable: Most New York breeders are not licensed. Hence, there is no certain way to identify those who wish to skirt the law by claiming they're “just” pet owners.
Worse, this would legitimize and encourage an act of cruelty. By telling pet owners devocalization is acceptable, the law could increase its incidence. Why?
Cutting vocal cords is obviously easier for the owner (and more profitable for the vet) than the responsible selection, housing, care and training of dogs and cats that benefit our communities as well animals. And devocalization is relatively cheap—unlike the post-devocalization reparative surgery needed to relieve the animal's suffering or prevent a terrible death. That can cost $2,000 or more. What do you think happens to devocalized animals whose owners can't or won't pay this price?
If passed with this loophole, breed fanciers would be able to keep "talkative" breeds in apartments or outdoors, and simply have their animals' vocal cords cut; neighbors won't know whether a dog is happy to see them or is warning them to stay away. A wagging tail could mean either! Animal hoarders and those breeding dogs or cats where it is not allowed would be able to hide their activities.
Why Would Applying the Law Only to Puppy Mills Harm Animals?
It's simple: Puppy mills are just a small segment of those who have animals devocalized. Devocalization is also ordered by AKC and backyard breeders, dog show exhibitors, sled dog racers and occasionally uninformed or selfish pet owners. A law this narrow would leave the majority of dogs and cats unprotected--and sanction an act of cruelty. If an action is cruel, as surgically stifling an animal's voice unequivocally is, no one should be allowed to perform or cause it to be performed.
Claims and Facts
Claim: No veterinarian would devocalize a dog or cat. It’s not happening in New York.
Fact: Devocalization is more common than most people, including vets, realize—even in New York. It's a cruelty that is easy to hide. Unlike cropped ears, docked tails and declawed paws, vocal cords are not visible. People assume devocalized animals have laryngitis. It's hard to fathom that someone actually had their vocal cords cut.
New York veterinarians have provided statements documenting the previously devocalized dogs they have treated or had to euthanize for complications of this needless surgery.
New York animal shelters and rescue groups have provided statements describing the devocalized dogs relinquished to them.
Some of their statements are included here.
Claim: If performed correctly, devocalization is a benign procedure.
Fact: Veterinarians board-certified in surgery and anesthesiology are among the many who have testified there is no benign way to devocalize an animal. Surgical risks and complications are present regardless of the vet’s skill; the instrument used, including laser; and the surgical route, through the mouth or an incision in the neck. Even a small amount of scarring in the throat, a normal part of healing after any surgery, can cause the animal to die horribly from choking, aspiration pneumonia or heat stroke.
Claim: If devocalization is outlawed, it will be performed by those not licensed to provide veterinary care.
Fact: Where devocalization is legal, that’s already happening—just as ear cropping and tail docking are sometimes performed by persons other than licensed vets. But even in the hands of competent veterinarians and veterinary surgeons, animals are suffering and dying as a result of devocalization. There is no benign way to perform this procedure. None.
Vets who devocalize claim outlawing devocalization will subject animals to risks. Reality check: Cutting vocal cord tissue is dangerous performed by anyone--including veterinary surgeons--using any means, even laser. When it's done just to stifle the voice, that is inhumane.
Claim: Some breeds are born to bark and meow persistently; training won’t resolve that.
Fact: Even genetically based behavior is influenced by environment. According to animal behavior experts like master dog trainer Anthony Jerone, founder of the New York City Transit Authority K-9 Unit, there is no such thing as an untrainable dog. Veterinary behaviorists say medication can facilitate training. However, if persistent vocalization is a concern, why purchase or breed animals in whom this trait is cultivated, like Sheltie dogs and Siamese cats, only to have their vocal cords cut? Putting these breeds or groups of any animal where the sound of their voices won’t be tolerated is irresponsible; devocalizing them to compensate is abjectly cruel.
Claim: If pet owners can’t devocalize, more animals will be surrendered and euthanized.
Fact: Devocalized animals are surrendered and convenience euthanized like any other, for the same reasons. Devocalization doesn't prevent house-soiling, biting or other "nuisance" behaviors, and it doesn't improve an owner's financial, health or marital problems. And because complications such as scar tissue that impairs breathing and swallowing,are so costly to treat, devocalization can increase the risk of surrender or convenience euthanasia.
Devocalization also does not prevent the surrender of breeding and show animals who are not profitable to their owners, those too old to breed or who are not marketable. Where do they go then? Those who aren't euthanized or purchased--with or without disclosure by the breeder--often land in financially strapped, nonprofit animal shelters and rescue groups.
Copyright 2012, Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets. All Rights Reserved.
