Those who oppose debarking operations often do so on the grounds of inhumanity. They object to the surgery on principle, noting the dog has no ability to consent to the action and that since it is not a health-related matter, the elimination of a dog’s bark via surgery is simply moral wrong. There is no justification to expose the dog to the risk of surgery for the mere sake of convenience, they will argue.
Additionally, they note that the surgery does nothing to eliminate the underlying reasons for the dog’s constant barking. The dog is likely to continue to “bark” albeit silently or at a lower volume because root causes of the unappreciated behavior are not addressed. This cuts against the potential benefits of the surgery as the real nature of the dog’s life is not changed—they still suffer from the same issues as before. Post-surgery, however, they suffer in relative silence, which decreases the owner’s impetus to explore what problems led to the errant behavior in the first place.
Those who reject the procedure also note the medical risk inherent in any major surgery and any procedure requiring use of a general anesthetic. This line of thought purports that the risks associated with the procedure outweigh the minor benefits that may it may possibly produce.
The question of whether or not a dog should be considered a prospect for a debarking procedure remains a highly personal one. There are many who would argue that, under the right circumstances, a dog and owner can both benefit from the procedure. There are just as many who reject the procedure out of hand as a wasteful act of inhumanity.
Debarking surgery remains a controversial and divisive issue within the dog community and it is not likely that a consensus will soon emerge either for or against the procedure. There are reasons to support the practice often seemingly solvent act debarking, yet many reasons to be distrustful of the procedure, its true efficacy and moral justifications.
