Mutilations / Debarking

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Stephen Courtney — Mon, 16 May 2011 13:42:00 GMT

Interesting that the rooster box thing didn't work for you...maybe it was too roomy?

I have to admit the advice is hearsay, but it originally came from Prof Ed Usenik from Missouri State, he was a real 'old time' vet who could do anything and then became an academic, rather than the other way round....

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Kate Richardson — Mon, 16 May 2011 13:41:59 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Neutering benefits the population as a whole by controlling numbers.[/quote]

I've never bought into that argument. Keep your dog under control and there should be no issue. In all honesty the great majority of people do not neuter their dogs because of health benefits or to keep population under control - they do it for the convenience. A bitch in season is messy. A JRT humping your leg makes it hard to concentrate on the TV. We do it because it's easier. I make no lie that is the reason I spayed my little bitch.

[/quote]

Thats all well and good if you are intelligent enough and responsible enough to do so. Unfortunately a lot of people aren't. So whatever the reason they neuter their animal for, it will help control numbers.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

You could argue that about almost any painful intervention we ever do to a dog. Small dog with a cruciate rupture - month of cage rest. Fracture repairs. Ear surgery. The dog has to suffer to get better, but it's not aware of that because it lives for now. We should give this all up and just kill anything that might need any procedure that could cause pain?

[/quote]

I am totally with you in the camp of an animal only lives for now and has no concept of the future. And we help in deciding whether short term pain for long term gain is appropriate. An owner can perceive pain/lameness/ear problems and can thus perceive if it is ongoing or getting better. But many(most?) of them do not appreciate or understand even the most basic of animal behaviours. As far as they are concerned as long as it eats its dinner and wants to go for a walk (or not in the case of the overweight dog...) then their perception is that the dog is ok. If they can't hear it barking, whether that is because they are not there to hear it or if it has been debarked, and it is not a nuisance to them, then they will continue to think the dog is ok. Until it starts ripping the house to shreds. In which case it may be ok for them to euthanase it at that point

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Edward Jones — Mon, 16 May 2011 13:01:01 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Domesticated pets cannot express their natural behaviour.[/quote]

Agreed. It's important not to fool ourselves on this one.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I'd rather be alive and mute then dead.[/quote]

In this context my objection to debarking isn't necessarily about the inability of the dog to display natural behaviour, but more that continuous barking is probably caused by welfare problems. If the welfare issues aren't significant then maybe I'll rethink my (admittedly instinctive) objection. As an aside, "I'd rather be..." is an unnecessary deflection - we're talking about dogs not people!

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]The amount of time our profession worries about the little things (tail docking anyone?) ignoring the bigger picture. Overweight, under exercised dogs. Animals that should have been seen much sooner. Pathetic welfare on some farms.[/quote]

Good point, but just because there's bigger issues doesn't mean the smaller issues should be ignored.

[quote user="Stephen Courtney"]As for crowing roosters, there is an easy fix at least for the early morning stuff. Put him to bed in a box with a ceiling slightly too low for him to extend his neck - they can only crow by stretching the neck up and if you prevent this , no crowing. till you let him out[/quote]

I tried that, it didn't work!

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Vikki Halliday LLB — Sat, 14 May 2011 21:44:00 GMT

[quote user="Stephen Courtney"]Has anyone tried the Aboistop? I believe it can work well[/quote]

Yup, tried it on my (now deceased) Parson JRT.

He barked and barked until it emptied the reservoir and kept on barking.

Clomicalm and a bit of owner reassurance did the trick though.........

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Stephen Courtney — Sat, 14 May 2011 13:05:19 GMT

Has anyone tried the Aboistop? I believe it can work well.

In a country where tail docking has been banned, even considering debarking a dog / declawing a cat etc is very foolhardy I would have thought. As for the ethics....I would rather euthanase, every time. Considering that most of us are meat eaters and we use animals for our own benefits in most cases - to look at, to cuddle, to talk to, to wear, to eat, you might argue that altering the animal to take away natural behaviours is acceptable too, but i can't stomach the idea.

As for crowing roosters, there is an easy fix at least for the early morning stuff. Put him to bed in a box with a ceiling slightly too low for him to extend his neck - they can only crow by stretching the neck up and if you prevent this , no crowing. till you let him out

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 13 May 2011 21:36:26 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Neutering benefits the population as a whole by controlling numbers.[/quote]

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]You can take away the bark, but you are not taking away the anxiety, so in these cases, environmental change or euthanasia is more humane IMO.[/quote]

I'd rather be alive and mute then dead.

[quote user="i am ed"]Neutering is a mutilation and prevents the animal from displaying natural behaviour[/quote]

Domesticated pets cannot express their natural behaviour. We are fooling ourselves thinking they can. Live wild, scrounge for food, fight and die from communicable disease? Or sleep on the sofa after Chinese leftovers? I think I know what my Patterdale would prefer, despite this being very far removed from 'natural behaviour'.

The amount of time our profession worries about the little things (tail docking anyone?) ignoring the bigger picture. Overweight, under exercised dogs. Animals that should have been seen much sooner. Pathetic welfare on some farms.

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Amanda Nicholls — Fri, 13 May 2011 18:21:25 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]

Neutering benefits the population as a whole by controlling numbers. Debarking benefits only the humans who can't hear the dog bark anymore. Dogs bark for a reason, one of those being anxiety. You can take away the bark, but you are not taking away the anxiety, so in these cases, environmental change or euthanasia is more humane IMO.

[/quote]

With reference to the environmental change I wonder if PU surgery for male cats has the same ethical dilema. Are we just doing a quick fix without addressing the underlying causes of cystitis, are these male cats still suffering without showing outward signs and are we increasing their risk of urinary tract infections? I know PU is a life saving procedure for many cats but could it be argued that euthanasia would be more humane than performing the mutilation? It is usually a procedure I perform when the owners are reaching a euthanasia decision and most do opt for the surgery rather than euthanasia but should I be considering euthanasia if they won't commit to environmental or diet changes? I'm really just thinking outloud here but I'm not sure a PU is much different than debarking a dog if we are talking about mutilation. I agree with Kate that neutering is a much easier mutilation to argue in favour of as it has an obvious population benefit as well as individual benefits.

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Kate Richardson — Fri, 13 May 2011 16:39:40 GMT

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Edward Jones — Fri, 13 May 2011 15:09:29 GMT

I have to admit that I'd never heard of debarking being carried out, although I did briefly wonder (not seriously) if a comparable procedure was possible on my rooster - now no-more because of the noise problem.

The procedure seems analogous to treating diarrhoea with a nappy - it sorts the human aspect of the problem but does nothing for the dog. Obsessive barking indicates a significant welfare problem which obviously the surgery does nothing for. If suitable living conditions can not be provided then I think euthanasia is by far a preferable alternative (if rehoming is impossible).

Neutering is a mutilation and prevents the animal from displaying natural behaviour, although I would argue that welfare is not affected by this and it does have specific benefits (and a few health risks admittedly). I don' t think you can take a black and white look on the issue, I'm largely content with where we draw the line in the UK.

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 13 May 2011 13:38:10 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]This is a good topic and I bet there would be loads of interest if it wasn't tucked down here on the naughty step - why not ask Arlo to move it to the main 'In Practice/clinical' section where it will appear on the general list of topics and get bumped every time someone replies? [/quote]

Noone told me, and I only just saw it.

You're absolutely right Niall. The controversial section is only for me to move posts into if they get particularly heated.

New discussions should not be started in the controversial section, as it is unlikely very many people will see it.

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Niall Taylor — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:27:45 GMT

This is a good topic and I bet there would be loads of interest if it wasn't tucked down here on the naughty step - why not ask Arlo to move it to the main 'In Practice/clinical' section where it will appear on the general list of topics and get bumped every time someone replies? This section was created mainly to hide RMB/homeopathic/anti-vacc flame wars from delicate ears! Don't worry, if it gets too heated he'll move it back again pronto .

For the record surgical debarking is considered an unethical mutilation in the UK & you'd be struck off for doing it and, IMHO I would fully agree with that position. Excessive barking is an owner problem, not a dog problem. Some people just aren't fit to own animals.

Niall

Re: Mutilations / Debarking

Alastair Franklin — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:31:36 GMT

No one's bitten yet - perhaps it is too controversial. To break my posting duck on such a topic may not bode well, but here goes.....

For the record, I have been involved with multiple debarkings, but all have been overseas, in areas where it has been carried out in full complicance with local and national laws. In fact, I have also been involved with a retrospective study on the subject, which indicated that, when done by an experienced surgeon and by a particular method, results (both clinical and from an owner satisfaction point of view) can be very positive, with minimal complications.

Please be mindful that in the UK (as I am sure you are already aware), it is very much illegal. I was very anti-devocalisation initially, to the point of refusing to be involved with the procedures, but then my mind was changed by one particular patient, that belonged to one of our vet nurses. She had received verbal and written threats to both her and her dogs, and this genuinely was a last alternative to euthanasia (she had tried the list of behavioural modifiers, and repeat consults with a behavioural specialist, all to no avail).

I feel that there is a role for surgical devocalisation, but it really must be as a last resort, which if the proper processes are followed prior to this (ie proper behavioural modifications and sincere attempts at addressing the underlying cause of the unwanted vocalisation), should be a rare event. Unfortunately too many people (owners and some vets) see it as a quick fix 'convenience' solution, pandering to the wants of a lazy owner rather than doing it for the welfare of the dog. (yes, I know some one will probably flame me for mentioning devocalisation as a positive welfare procedure for the dog, but if the alternative for a healthy dog is euthanasia.......)

As to whether the UK is ready to change the rules on this (or rather, whether it even should change the rules on this) is a completely different discussion, and needs to address a whole set of other procedures/issues as well.

Alastair