How effective would cutting out a dog's vocal chords be at preventing it from barking?
Sort of like a vocal neutering.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
28 Answers
Dumb question from a smart person!
“How effective would a lobotomy be in preventing @ragingloli from thinking right?”
♥♥
Though it has crossed my mind when my canine’s barking pierces my eardrum or when she sends me into cardiac arrest as she pounces up and barks crazily in the middle of the silent night, I consider it barbaric and worse to hear a hacking cough sound from a dog without chords. I go back to my live and let live philosophy.
WTF? That’s what training for. Don’t like barking don’t get a dog.
Horrible! I wouldn’t do that to a dog. If I owned one who never stopped barking, I’d find him a home where he could happily be a regular noisy dog (in the country, say) rather a mutilated one to solve my noise problem.
I do not see the objection. You would have no problem with cutting a dog’s balls off, so why be hypocritically outraged at this?
To me there’s a difference but I see no point in debating it online. I only hope you don’t come back in the next life as a dog!
Get a Basenji also known as a barkless dog.
I get the point. It is not about barking dogs. It is about altering the born state of any animal just to suit human desires or wishes. Ya’ll walked into that one bearing gifts.
Well presented, @ragingloli, but some things are just going to continue, no matter how you choose to press the point.
To answer the question, very. I have a scalpel lying around. May make my puppy aware of that fact…
Well, the scalpel is in one of the yet-unpacked boxes, so Wilson is safe for now.
My daughter has a pony with a sore throat, it’s a little hoarse :D
Having a dog neutered is being responsible. Cutting the vocal chords for your convenience is not.
how is mutilating a dog to make him a bit less aggressive not ‘for your convenience’?
@ragingloli , it has little to nothing to do with aggression, at least in most cases in the U.S. They are making puppies galore, and more by far than are wanted. It is about numbers control. The castration for aggression issue would be human related, not dogs. I think that hasn’t taken place in my country for a very long time.
”It is about numbers control.”
Which is also for convenience.
I wasn’t thinking of aggression. I was thinking birth control.
As the owner of a male dog or cat, it’s not really a convenience for me. Hell, I wouldn’t even know if litters were being born. They could never get me for child support!
As effective as burning its eyes out with acid to prevent it from looking at you funny.
Or, you know, you could train it.
Not very. We had a neighbor who did that to her two border collies. It stopped the barking all right, but they were still able to make a keening, shrieking noise that was just as awful.
Controlling the number of dogs being born is not just about convenience. It’s to prevent animals from living on the streets and starving, or to prevent them from being abused in cities where there are so many begging strays that people gladly take out their aggression on the animals by kicking them, torturing them or killing them.
Right, @DrasticDreamer. And the onus is not just on the owners of the females.
Ummmm…..better circle this day on your calendars, I cannot say I totally disagree with @ragingloli, from a totally logical stance, emotions notwithstanding, he/she makes a compelling argument which i have not seen anyone yet totally refute
OK, so how is neutering a male dog for anyone’s convenience? If my animals are male, then it is no inconvenience to me at all. I don’t have to deal with litters and litters of puppies and kittens. I don’t have to deal with trying to find good homes for them all. I don’t have to worry that some of them may wind up abused, neglected or tortured. However, although I may not know about it, I bear half the responsibility for all of those things, and it would be wrong for me not to step up and deal with my side of it.
As for neutering the males so they aren’t as aggressive, that too is not a bad thing. Over the years I’ve had two male cats that I didn’t have neutered. Neither of them lived past 5 years of age. They got in god-awful fights, they got ripped up, they got infections and they died from those infections.
Further, how can anyone say that it is preferable to let a female cat live its life “naturally” by having 2 or 3 litters every year, for the next 10 years, until she dies from the damage, trauma and infection in her uterus? I love kittens. I’d love to have 2 or 3 litters of kittens a year, for six weeks at a time. That’s no inconvenience for me.
We have the ability to make these animal’s lives more humane than they would be naturally. We have the ability to prevent the birth of dozens and dozens of unwanted kittens and puppies. We should do that.
That is *NOT comparable to cutting a poor dog’s vocal chords.*
Answer this question 
