Update April 23, 2010: Late yesterday, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed H.B. 344, an Act banning the devocalization of dogs and cats into law! 

This is the first effective statewide law to ban devocalization. The law was drafted and supported by Animal Law Coalition and passed as a result of a grass roots effort, Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets (CPRPets), made up of pet owners, veterinarians, shelters and rescues, attorneys, students, and other advocates and citizens.  

New Jersey has a law banning devocalization, but there are a number of broad exceptions that make it generally unenforceable. The only exception in the Massachusetts law is for medical necessity as determined by a licensed veterinarian for disease, injury or a congenital condition that is causing or could cause the animal harm or pain and suffering.  

This cruel practice of devocalization is largely done by breeders for their own convenience.

For more on this bill and its history including efforts by MVMA and breeders to defeat it, read Animal Law Coalition's previous reports below.   

Update April 9: The Massachusetts House of Representatives has now concurred in or accepted the minor amendments made by the Senate! 

Following enactment by both the House and the Senate, both of which passed the bill overwhelmingly initially, H.B. 344, a bill to ban devocalization of dogs and cats, also known as Logan's Law, goes to Governor Deval Patrick for signature. 

Update April 1: Despite MVMA's best efforts, H.B. 344, Logan's Law, the bill to ban devocalization of dogs and cats, was engrossed or passed by the Massachusetts Senate today!  

There were minor amendments to the bill that relate to the reporting requirements in the rare event a veterinarian would perform a devocalization out of medical necessity.

The bill now goes to the House which must approve the minor amendments. The House has already engrossed the legislation as originally introduced. 

Update Mar. 31, 2010: There is no doubt that Logan's Law, H.B. 344, which would ban devocalization of dogs and cats except for medical necessity, has overwhelming support from the Massachusetts House of Representatives, the public and many veterinarians and  shelters. 

But, the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA), fearful of lost revenue from devocalizing dogs for commercial breeders, has proposed another amendment to kill the bill. MVMA has offered an exemption to all breeders and people who use dogs or cats for show, hunting or other such purposes. MVMA's amendment would protect only "pets" from "convenience devocalization", not the many dogs and cats held or bred by commercial breeders or used for show, hunting or worse. 

Another problem is the MVMA exemption is cleverly worded. MVMA creates the exemption for breeders and the like by limiting the ban to "pets" instead of "dogs and cats" as in H.B. 344. Many state senators may not realize by using the word "pet", this means breeders and the like and their willing veterinarians will be exempt because they don't consider the dogs and cats they keep, breed and sell to be "pets". Neither do many who use dogs for shows, hunting and the like.

MVMA also buries in yet another amendment that would allow  devocalization if it is done by non-invasive surgery. What does it matter how it is done if the dog or cat is left mute or able only to make soft, whining, gagging sounds? 

Finally, MVMA would exempt veterinarians who perform illegal devocalizations from any criminal penalties, even fines.   

This is only the latest effort by MVMA to gut this humane bill. 

Other disinformation by MVMA 

MVMA also says that the bill requires vets to file a certificate of necessity before devocalization is performed for medical necessity. This is simply not true.

The bill makes clear that performing devocalization on a dog or cat is animal cruelty unless the vet files a certificate indicating it was done out of medical necessity. Obviously, the certificate would be filed after the devocalization surgery! The vet is not required to get permission for the surgery, as MVMA has implied, and no one even reviews whether the devocalization was indeed medically necessary!  

Even if it is not clear when the vet must file the certificate, the bill can be easily amended to state the certificate must be filed after the devocalization and not before. It is not a reason to throw out the whole bill as MVMA would prefer! 

Just the Facts

• Because House Bill 344 allows vocal cord surgery only to treat disease, injury or birth defects, it requires a simple certificate stating the medical reason for vocal cord surgery. It is to be filed after surgery is performed. That is in line with other MA laws requiring veterinary certificates.
• MVMA is urging vets to defeat the bill based on misinterpretation of this provision.
• The association exists to protect members' business interests. Apparently enough members profit from devocalization to devote lobbying and financial resources to kill House Bill 344, which would end this unethical practice.
• Without a certificate of medical necessity, there is no accountability, and vets will be free to devocalize under the radar--cruel business as usual.

For more information about this bill, read Animal Law Coalition's reports below and the transcript attached below for downloading of the discussion and vote on H.B. 344 in the House of Representatives.

Update Mar. 3, 2010: The Massachusetts House of Representatives voted 155-1 for engrossment of the bill, H.B. 344, to ban devocalization except in the event of medical necessity. The bill passed without amendments.

During consideration of the bill, representatives were shown photos of dogs left with horrific scars from devocalization and learned of animals left unable to bark and who choked or gagged frequently as a result of this convenience surgery.  

The bill now goes to the state Senate!    

H.B. 344, An Act to Prohibit Devocalization of Dogs and Cats, Logan's Law would stop what Massachusetts state Rep. Vincent Pedone has called "barbaric and inhumane", the devocalization of dogs and cats. The Third Reading Committee which he chairs is releasing the bill, without amendments, for a vote by the full House. 

A December 2009 poll shows Massachusetts voting age adults oppose devocalization at a rate of 21:1. There were no differences by gender, age or race.   Source: Chestnut Hill Advisors, Chestnut Hill, MA

The sponsor of H.B. 344, An Act to Prohibit Devocalization of Dogs and Cats, a coalition of concerned citizens, pet owners, veterinarians and advocates, known as Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets (CPR Pets), issued this statement, "Lobbyists for the special interests that profit from devocalization may not be happy with these poll results. But fact is, they mirror our experience. As we canvas throughout Massachusetts, the question nearly everyone asks of CPR Pets is, 'Why on earth is devocalization legal?'"

Why this bill must pass without opponent's amendments

Those profiting from devocalization have hedged their bets. If they can't kill the bill outright, they hope to render it worthless with loopholes by adding language like the following:

1)  "Allowable as a last resort or for behavioral problems or if the owner has been charged with having a noisy animal" are all amendments that would make the law unenforceable.

• No vet can determine, and some won't try, whether a client pursued all humane options or provides proper care. (Bored, lonely or anxious dogs bark more--they may also bite!)  Also, allowing devocalization for any behavioral problem or if the owner has been charged with having a noisy animal, the bill would sanction exactly what it is trying to outlaw - inhumane convenience devocalization.  The bill would be unenforceable and pointless.
• This loophole is baseless too: Respected shelter operators testified before the legislative committee that devocalized animals are abandoned like any other. It does not save lives. There is no evidence that devocalization will prevent noisy animals from being surrendered or abandoned. In fact, we have found it's just the opposite. Nearly all the devocalized dogs we've found were adopted after their breeders, who ordered the surgery, dumped them.

  Devocalization can require multiple surgeries if tissue grows back. It also results in scar tissue and can mean health complications for the animal. Owners who do this to their animals are more likely to get rid of them if there are too many costly surgeries or health problems.

  Banning devocalization will save animals from being surrendered or abandoned.

  Surgical devocalizing or silencing does not address the problem causing the barking such as stress, fear, loneliness, frustration, illness, injury, poor socialization, lack of training, and instead is akin to cutting the vocal chords of a noisy child. The reason for the barking, distress, boredom, fear, will continue regardless and likely escalate, and the dog or cat may act out in other ways, including by biting, and as a result, end up in the pound.   

• Responsible selection, care, training and housing, not convenience surgery,  keep behavior from becoming a "nuisance."

2) An amendment that says devocalization is "permissible if performed by a licensed vet" would maintain the status quo, and animals would continue to suffer.

• It's vets who are devocalizing now! Yet animals are suffering.
• Devocalization poses serious, life-threatening risks regardless of who performs it--including the prominent Mass. Veterinary Medical Assn. member whose patient, a little Pomeranian, choked to death after she devocalized him.
• Angell Animal Medical Center endorses this bill with good reason
• More than 200 MA vets have taken an ethical stand despite MVMA's alignment with the breeding community against this humane bill. Make sure your vet is on board! For a veterinary endorser near you: CPRPets@aol.com

Watch the video below to learn about this issue and go here to watch this video and see this video for accounts of what happened to dogs that were devocalized. (Read the story of Stella featured in the attachment to this article below.)

Sadly, Mass Veterinary Medical Assn. implied in its denunciation of the bill that ASPCA opposed H.B. 344.  ASPCA, however, has announced it supports the bill and called on MVMA to remove ASPCA's name from its opposition papers. 

Some vets make money from these devocalizations especially those performed for breeders and thus the MVMA's opposition to this bill which would make convenience devocalization illegal.  

More About Logan's Law

Animal Law Coalition has drafted this bill to ban devocalizing or silencing of dogs and cats in Massachusetts except in the event of a medical necessity circumstances. In dogs it is called "debarking".

A grassroots effort led by  the Coalition to  Rescue and Protect Pets (CRPets) is underway to pass the bill, H.B. 344, An Act to Prohibit Devocalization of Dogs and Cats. There are numerous co-sponsors. Numerous veterinarians, rescues and citizens have endorsed this bill.

The bill, H.B. 344,  if passed, will be called Logan's Law, named for Logan, a dog that underwent devocalization surgery and was later abandoned. Tom and Gayle Fitzpatrick adopted Logan. Gayle is the founder of Friends of the Plymouth Pound.

Demi is another example of a dog who was devocalized. Cynthia M., Taunton, explains, "We rescued Demi after a breeder had her vocal cords cut to stifle her voice. Devocalization is inhumane." And more common than you think.

"When Demi was spayed, scar tissue from devocalization made it difficult to keep her airway open. Just a little exertion stresses her, and she can't bark at all, only whine. Cutting the vocal cords of a healthy animal is immoral. It should be illegal."

You can read Stella's story in the attachment below. These are just a few examples of the widespread practice particularly among breeders of devocalizing dogs, a convenience surgery that is cruel and inhumane. 

CRPets adds, "Some breeders devocalize routinely to keep many dogs without complaints from neighbors. Occasionally, an uninformed or irresponsible pet owner will order this convenience surgery, rendering his or her "best friend" mute or chronically hoarse. These animals face serious risks regardless of the vet's skill or how the vocal cords are cut. Some die. Others gag uncontrollably...choke on food or water...struggle to breathe the rest of their lives. And they don't benefit at all: Devocalized dogs and cats are abandoned like any other".

Attached is a Download outlining the fictions they are spreading about devocalization and the facts.

What is devocalizing or silencing? 

Devocalizing or silencing is a painful surgical procedure to remove or cut the vocal chords. This procedure can cause paralysis of the larynx, difficulty in breathing, and adverse reaction to anesthesia. An animal may be forced to undergo multiple surgeries because of regrowth of tissue. This is not a simple procedure as some may tell you.

The proposed legislation would make it illegal for anyone to surgically devocalize or silence a dog or cat. There are exceptions to protect the health of the animal. Only in rare instances would surgical devocalizing or silencing be medically necessary.

More typically, surgical devocalizing or silencing is a cruel, inhumane act done for the convenience of the owner. It does not address the problem causing the barking such as stress, fear, loneliness, frustration, illness, injury, poor socialization, lack of training, and instead is akin to cutting the vocal chords of a noisy child. 

Dogs and cats that cannot vocalize their intentions, moods or needs present a risk to the public and increased liability to pet owners.

People may not realize a dog is about to bite or attack, for example, because the dog has not barked, and because he has been debarked or silenced, can only make a wheezy, rasping sound.  A dog that cannot bark also cannot signal danger to family members, for example, from an intruder or a fire.  

Dennis Oakley, Federal Police Canine Handler, explains, "I cannot begin to tell you how many times barking has changed a potentially dangerous situation just by sounding an alarm. We would teach (military guard) dogs when it was "ok" to bark and when to be quiet." 

"The whole deck was on fire...near the gas line. Thank God I have a dog who barks, who does a good job of protecting us." This from Bob Mohr, Pet Owner, Plymouth

Devocalizing does not mean an animal is less likely to be abandoned or surrendered to a shelter. Just the opposite.  CRPets says, "Nearly all the devocalized dogs we've found were adopted after their breeders, who ordered the surgery, dumped them."

Devocalization can require multiple surgeries if tissue grows back. It also results in scar tissue and can mean health complications for the animal. Owners who do this to their animals are more likely to get rid of them if there are too many costly surgeries or health problems.

Devocalization does not address the underlying behavior that may be causing the barking or crying. The reason for the barking or crying, whether fear, boredom, stress, will continue and escalate, and a dog or cat may act out in other ways, including by biting, and as a result, end up in the pound.   

Also, devocalizing or silencing enables illegal activities associated with dogs and cats: Owners trying to avoid pet limits, licensing or nuisance laws may simply debark their pets. Worse, commercial breeders hiding the numbers of dogs or cats they have and the squalid conditions in which they are kept, notoriously rely on devocalizing or silencing. 

Making surgical devocalizing or silencing a crime will, in fact, give law enforcement and prosecutors another tool in investigating and prosecuting animal cruelty as well as enforcing regulations for commercial breeders.