# data[].attributes.headline
The History of Animal Protection in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.subject
The History of Animal Protection in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Janet M. Davis

American animal protectionists from earlier centuries might seem unrecognizable today. Most ate meat. They believed in euthanasia as a humane end to creaturely suffering. They justified humanity's kinship with animals through biblical ideas of gentle stewardship. They accepted animal labor as a compulsory burden of human need. Their sites of activism included urban streets, Sunday schools, church pulpits, classrooms, temperance meetings, and the transnational missionary field. Committed to animal welfare, they strove to prevent pain and suffering. Contemporary animal rights activists, by contrast, believe that animals possess the right to exist free from human use and consumption. Consequently, current activists and their scholarly associates often miss the historical significance of earlier eras of activism. A growing historiography, however, demonstrates the centrality of animal protection to major American transformations such as Protestant revivalism and reform, the growth of science and technology, the rise of modern liberalism, child protectionism, and the development of American ideologies of benevolence.

Animal protection entered the American colonial record in December 1641, when the Massachusetts General Court enacted its comprehensive legal code, the "Body of Liberties." Sections 92-93 prohibited "any Tirranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usuallie kept for man's use" and mandated periodic rest and refreshment for any "Cattel" being driven or led.(1) Puritan animal advocates believed that cruel dominion was a consequence of Adam and Eve's fall from the Garden of Eden; kindly stewardship, however, reflected their reformist ideals, thus illuminating a long historical relationship between religion, reform, and animal protection.

Beginning in the 1870s, animal protectionists saw the safeguarding of children and animals as equally important, as both were vulnerable creatures in need of protection. COURTESY OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

Transnational Protestant revivalism and social reform in the early nineteenth century fueled the expansion of animal protectionism. In Great Britain, evangelicals and abolitionists spearheaded the earliest animal protection laws (1822) and organized societies (1824), which became a blueprint for dozens of new anticruelty laws in America. Social reformers and ministers became attentive to the status of animals during the Second Great Awakening (1790-1840). Embracing a new theology of free moral agency and human perfectibility, American ministers such as Charles Grandison Finney included animal mercy in their exegeses on upright Christian conduct. New transportation networks and communications technologies broadcast animal protection to far-flung audiences through classroom readers, Sunday school pamphlets, and fiction.

Antebellum abolitionists and temperance activists treated animal welfare as a barometer for human morality. Antislavery newspapers and novels, most famously Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852), stressed the incidence of animal abuse among slaveholders and animal kindness among abolitionists. Many future animal welfare leaders possessed abolitionist ties, such as George Thorndike Angell, founder and president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Temperance advocates likewise believed that inebriates were cruel to their families and their horses. The Bands of Hope, a children's group, stressed animal kindness as a moral complement to sobriety.

Antebellum activism and cultural thought created a foundation for a new social movement after the Civil War. The abolition of slavery and the horror of battle-documented in thousands of wartime photographs of dead soldiers and horses-brought suffering and human rights to a national audience, therefore catalyzing a national movement. Animal protectionists believed that creaturely kindness was a marker of advanced civilization, which could rectify a fractured nation and world. The penultimate moment for a new movement arrived on April 10, 1866, when the New York Legislature incorporated a groundbreaking state animal protection society vested with policing powers to prosecute abuse. Henry Bergh, a shipping heir, drafted the articles of incorporation of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) with the help of his influential allies, including historian George Bancroft and state senator Ezra Cornell. Days later, they spearheaded a powerful new state anticruelty law, which they amended in 1867 to prohibit additional forms of cruelty, including blood sports and abandonment. Bergh and his officers policed the streets wearing uniforms and badges to enforce the law.

By the 1870s SPCAs and anticruelty laws modeled after Bergh's work in New York existed in most states. In the Gilded Age, activists directed their attention to the plight of domestic laboring animals in an urban, muscle-powered world-especially horses. Historians Clay McShane, Joel Tarr, and Ann Greene demonstrate the centrality of urban horses in building modern industrial America. Further, they treat horses as historical agents rather than passive conduits for a history of human ideas about animals.(2) As the nation's primary urban movers of machines, food, and people, horses suffered abusive drivers and overloaded haulage conditions with visible regularity. Animal protectionists also addressed the bleak system of livestock railroad transport from western rangelands to urban stockyards and slaughterhouses, culminating with the nation's first federal animal welfare legislation in 1873, which mandated food, water, and rest stops every twenty-eight hours. They raided animal fights; they tried to end vivisection in laboratories and classrooms; and they routinely shot decrepit workhorses as a merciful end to suffering.

Animals were legally defined as property, but Bergh's watershed legislation recognized cruelty as an offense to the animal itself-irrespective of ownership.(3) Historian Susan Pearson argues that these laws helped transform American liberalism-from a classical conception of rights in the negative-to augur the rise of the modern "interventionist" liberal state. Pearson contends that this positive conception of rights drew animal protectionists into child protection in the 1870s. Bergh's chief counsel, Elbridge Gerry, founded the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in 1874 after he secured the arrest and conviction of an abusive foster mother for felonious assault. Animal protectionists across the nation subsequently instituted amalgamated "humane societies," which safeguarded animals and children under a singular protective fold, positing that helpless "beasts and babes" had a right to protection because they could suffer. Viewed within an existing system of subordinate relations, the right to protection did not confer an automatic right to equality. Nonetheless, humane activists established a historical precedent for future generations of animal rights activists because they placed animals on a legal continuum with vulnerable human beings.

The majority of animal protectionists were affluent, nativeborn Euro-American Protestants. Men typically led SPCAs and patrolled the streets as officers, while women generally worked behind the scenes using moral suasion-raising funds, writing appeals, and coordinating educational activities. Keeping with prevailing ideologies of respectable white womanhood, Caroline Earle White secured a state charter for the founding of the Pennsylvania SPCA in 1867 but refused to seek election as the organization's first president. She also founded the American Anti-vivisection Association in 1883 but delayed passage of its incorporation until she and her female colleagues could find a man willing to serve as president.(4)

Some women, however, readily assumed leadership positions when they founded their own organizations. In 1869 White co-created the Women's Branch of the Pennsylvania SPCA and served as its first president. In 1890 Women's Branch leader Mary Frances Lovell became national superintendent of the Department of Mercy, an animal welfare wing in the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. The Women's Branch pioneered municipal stray canine reform. In an era before vaccines and sterilization, local dogcatchers staged massive summertime roundups in which strays were shot or violently thrown into crowded wagons and killed at the pound. The Women's Branch instituted new humane capture methods, and they transformed Philadelphia's municipal pound into a humane "shelter," where dogs received regular care. Euthanasia, when necessary, occurred in a separate room using gas, out of view from other dogs. Historian Bernard Unti observes that women sheltering leaders typically sought no powers of arrest in their state charters because their work with strays did not confront animal abusers directly.(5) Owing to pressure from members, mainstream SPCAs eventually incorporated stray management, sheltering, and adoption into their already stretched budgets.

With its affluent, urban, native-born Protestant base, the animal protection movement faced charges of exclusion and elitism-especially because teamsters and other targets of prosecution were often immigrants and people of color whose economic survival depended on animal muscle. In a pluralistic society, many humane activists viewed their own classed and culturally contingent ideals of kindness as universal when denouncing animal practices different than their own, such as kosher slaughter. They believed that animal kindness was a manifestation of higher civilization at home and in the overseas empire after the Spanish-American War. Interactions with animals, consequently, were often a flashpoint for conflict. Filipinos, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans flatly rejected U.S. anticockfighting laws as an oppressive colonial intrusion into indigenous leisure practices.(6)

Nonetheless, the animal protection movement was not a wholesale project of policing. Animal advocates preferred prevention over prosecution. Children's pedagogy became an institutionalized arm of the movement in 1889 when George Angell founded the American Humane Education Society (AHES) as the centerpiece of his holistic "gospel of kindness." In the South, several African American ministers, educators, and temperance activists served as AHES field secretaries. They staged meetings in black schools and churches to preach a conservative message of animal mercy, self-help, and racial uplift. They traveled widely by car, which represented a potentially dangerous show of black upward mobility in the rural Jim Crow South, especially when their lectures discussed exploitative practices such as debt peonage and sharecropping. The Massachusetts SPCA openly denounced human rights abuses, as well as American militarism overseas. Yet the organization embraced moral expansionism when sponsoring American missionaries, who integrated humane education curricula into their evangelical activities across the world.

With the growth of motor power during the 1910s, fewer laboring animals populated American cities. SPCAs staged nostalgic workhorse parades as a tribute to equine service and to raise funds for new comfortable retirement farms. In 1916 the American Humane Association founded the American Red Star Animal Relief to aid American warhorses, mules, and donkeys during World War I. The organization's fundraising pleas reminded donors that equines performed invaluable labor in impenetrable terrain despite the ascendancy of motorization. After the armistice, global horse markets collapsed and American warhorses were auctioned off in Europe because trans-Atlantic transport was cost prohibitive in an age of impending obsolescence. While equines remained an important source of agricultural labor, the expanding dominance of motorization changed the scope and direction of American animal protectionism.

Animal advocates increasingly viewed animal performances, long a staple of popular entertainment, as unethical. In 1918 the Massachusetts SPCA founded the Jack London Club in memory of the late author, who condemned animal entertainments. People joined by walking out of an animal show and sending a postcard to the Massachusetts SPCA with the details. While the organization had no immediate legislative impact, it represented a harbinger of activism to come in a motorized world.

During the twentieth century, slaughterhouse reform and antivivisectionism remained important activist sites. Yet pets, especially dogs and cats, escalated as subjects of protection. Historian Katherine Grier contends that the growth of a consumer culture of pet keeping, alongside the development of sulfonamides, parasite control, and antibiotics in the 1930s and 1940s, enabled people and their pets to live longer, healthier lives together in closer proximity.(7) Attitudes towards cats, perhaps, changed the most. In the nineteenth century, some animal protectionists maligned the cat as a semiwild killer of cherished songbirds. Medical advances and new consumer products, such as cat litter in 1947, brought cats indoors. By the mid-twentieth century, dogs, cats, and sheltering dominated animal protectionism.

The coalition of movements dedicated to moral uplift that had given animal protection its interconnected human and animal agenda eventually fractured, portending an almost singular focus on animals. The professionalization of social work during the Progressive Era cleaved the earlier union of child and animal protectionists into separate fields. The repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1933 dissolved the temperance movement-a longstanding stalwart ally. Gradual secularization also transformed animal protection. Earlier generations of activists forged alliances with religious leaders, but mid-century humane periodicals focused on celebrity animal lovers in media and politics. While the movement's mainline Protestant founders believed in biblical stewardship, their descendants embraced Darwinism.

Energized by the social justice movements of the 1960s and 1970s, animal protection evolved into two distinct but overlapping movements. Animal welfare groups, such as the ASPCA, remained focused on sheltering, adoption, and the prevention of suffering. In 1975 utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer published Animal Liberation, which was immediately hailed as a "bible" for an emergent animal rights movement. Singer argued that sentient creatures have a right to "equal consideration" because they can suffer and considered "speciesism" to be a form of discrimination akin to racism and sexism.(8) This claim, however, was rejected by many civil rights groups, who argued that it trivialized their social justice struggles. Singer, like most animal rights writers, supported veganism in an age when factory-like Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations have replaced pasture farming. Yet some activists, such as philosopher Tom Regan, concluded that Animal Liberation's utilitarian call to minimize suffering was ultimately too conservative or "welfarist." In 1983 Regan applied deontology-a branch of philosophy that explores moral duty-to animals. His book, The Case for Animal Rights, contended that animals possess intrinsic moral rights as individual "subjects of a life" with complex feelings and experiences that extend beyond their ability to suffer.(9)

Some scholars, most notably Steven Wise, argue that certain animals (such as this lowland gorilla pictured here) possess legal personhood, owing to their superior cognitive abilities. PHOTO BY RYAN VAARSI (https://www.flickr.com/photos/77799978@N00/18368041616) under Creative Commons 2.0 license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).

Paradoxically, vivisection has unwittingly validated the newest frontier in animal protection in the twenty-first century: legal personhood. In 2000 legal scholar Steven Wise used recent research in neuroscience and genetics in his book, Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals, to argue that great apes, cetaceans, elephants, and African gray parrots possess the legal right to "bodily liberty," owing to their superior cognitive abilities.(10) Wise founded the Nonhuman Rights Project in 2007 to take the principles of legal personhood to court. Armed with the writ of habeas corpus in state courts, Wise and his associates contend that captivity constitutes unlawful imprisonment. Suing on behalf of captive chimpanzees since 2013, Wise's team have served as proxies for their plaintiffs to achieve legal standing in court, a strategy based on centuries of human precedent involving children, slaves, prisoners, and mentally incapacitated plaintiffs. While Wise and his colleagues have yet to prevail in court, they have received a hearing, a critical first step in a long appeals process.(11)

The claims of the Nonhuman Rights Project for legal standing rest upon the inseparable histories of human rights and animal protection. Embedded in the history of religion, social reform, and war, early generations of American humane advocates argued that animal kindness was a form of human sanctification. They believed that the status of animals was a conduit for human moral uplift. Yet with the rise of biological explanations for animal-human kinship, animal rights advocates have used the status of vulnerable people to argue that animals, as moral "subjects of a life," possess the right to legal personhood. Ultimately, this shared history is simultaneously liberatory, conflictual, and entangled.

JANET M. DAVIS is an associate professor of American studies and history at the University of Texas at Austin. She is the author of The Circus Age: Culture and Society under the American Big Top (2002) and editor of Circus Queen and Tinker Bell: The Life of Tiny Kline (2008). Her book, The Gospel of Kindness: Animal Welfare and the Making of Modern America, will be published in 2016.

NOTES
(1) "The Liberties of the Massachusets Collonie in New England, 1641," from Hanover Historical Texts Project, https://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html.

(2) Clay McShane and Joel A. Tarr, The Horse in the City: Living Machines in the Nineteenth Century (2007); Ann Norton Greene, Horses at Work: Harnessing Power in
Industrial America (2008).

(3) Susan J. Pearson, The Rights of the Defenseless: Protecting Animals and Children in Gilded Age America (2011), 78.

(4) Bernard Oreste Unti, "'The Quality of Mercy': Organized Animal Protection in the United States, 1866-1930" (2002), 153, 155.

(5) Unti, 478-86.

(6) Janet M. Davis, "Cockfight Nationalism: Blood Sport and the Moral Politics of Empire and Nation Building," in "Species/Race/Sex," ed. Claire Jean Kim and Carla
Freccero, special issue, American Quarterly, 65 (Sept. 2013), 549-74.

(7) Katherine Grier, Pets in America: A History (2006).

(8) Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (1990), 6.

(9) Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (2004); Gary Francione, Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996).

(10) Steven Wise, Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000).

(11) Charles Siebert, "Should a Chimp Be Able to Sue Its Owner?" New York Times, April 27, 2014, p. MM28.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History of Animal Protection in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American animal protectionists from earlier centuries might seem unrecognizable today. Most ate meat. They believed in euthanasia as a humane end to creaturely suffering. They justified humanity's kinship with animals through biblical ideas of gentle stewardship. They accepted animal labor as a compulsory burden of human need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling, and humane slaughter. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment. Protecting an animal's welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs.

Ensuring animal welfare is a human responsibility that includes consideration for all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.

There are numerous perspectives on animal welfare that are influenced by a person's values and experiences. There are also various means of measuring animal welfare, including (but not limited to) health, productivity, behavior, and physiological responses.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has defined its commitment to animal welfare through the adoption of animal welfare principles that serve as guidance when the Association develops policies and takes action to ensure the welfare of animals:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gonadectomy: veterinary resources

Stay up-to-date and educate clients about the changing landscape of elective gonadectomy. Our gonadectomy resources for veterinarians include free CE webinars, a literature review of related research, and more.

Many pet owners opt to spay or neuter their pets, and spaying and neutering are important for reducing pet overpopulation.

What are the options?

If you decide to spay or neuter your pet, you have options. Discuss the options with your veterinarian so you can make a decision that's right for you, your family and your pet.

Surgical sterilization
During surgical sterilization, a veterinarian removes certain reproductive organs.

Ovariohysterectomy, or the typical "spay": the ovaries, fallopian tubes and uterus are removed from a female dog or cat. This makes her unable to reproduce and eliminates her heat cycle and breeding instinct-related behavior.

Orchiectomy, or the typical "neuter": the testes are removed from a male dog or cat. This makes him unable to reproduce and reduces or eliminates male breeding behaviors.

Surgical alternatives to traditional spaying and neutering
The procedures described above are the surgical procedures routinely used to spay or neuter dogs, but some pet owners opt for one of these alternatives:

Hysterectomy: the uterus and part of the fallopian tubes are removed from a female dog or cat. This makes her unable to reproduce, but her ovaries remain and will produce hormones. This may not eliminate the dog or cat's behaviors associated with the breeding instinct.

Vasectomy: only the vas deferens, which conducts sperm from the testes, are removed. This procedure makes the dog or cat unable to reproduce, but his testes remain and will produce hormones. This may not eliminate the dog or cat's behaviors associated with the breeding instinct.

Ovariectomy: the ovaries are removed from a female dog or cat, but the uterus remains. Similar to ovariohysterectomy, this makes her unable to reproduce and eliminates her heat cycle and breeding instinct-related behavior.

Nonsurgical sterilization
There is an approved product on the market used to neuter male cats and dogs that is injected into the testes to stop sperm production and render the dog or cat infertile. Because not all of the hormone-producing cells of the testes are affected by the drug, the testis will continue to produce some hormones. As research continues, additional products for nonsurgical sterilization may be developed.

Why spay or neuter?

Every year, millions of unwanted dogs and cats, including puppies and kittens, are euthanized. The good news is that responsible pet owners can make a difference. By having your dog or cat sterilized, you will do your part to prevent the birth of unwanted puppies and kittens. Spaying and neutering prevent unwanted litters, help protect against some serious health problems, and may reduce many of the behavioral problems associated with the mating instinct.

Removing a female dog or cat's ovaries eliminates heat cycles and generally reduces the unwanted behaviors that may lead to owner frustration. Removing the testes from male dogs and cats reduces the breeding instinct, making them less inclined to roam and more content to stay at home.

Early spaying of female dogs and cats can help protect them from some serious health problems later in life such as uterine infections and breast cancer. Neutering your male pet can also lessen its risk of developing benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate gland) and testicular cancer.

The procedure has no effect on a pet's intelligence or ability to learn, play, work or hunt. Some pets tend to be better behaved following surgical removal of their ovaries or testes, making them more desirable companions.

What are the risks of spaying and neutering?

Although reproductive hormones cause mating behaviors that may be undesirable for many pet owners, these hormones also affect your pet's overall health and can be beneficial. Removing your pet's ovaries or testes removes these hormones and can result in increased risk of health problems such as urinary incontinence and some types of cancer. Talk to your veterinarian about the benefits and risks of the sterilization procedure so you can make an informed decision.

While both spaying and neutering are major surgical procedures, they are also the most common surgeries performed by veterinarians on cats and dogs. Like any surgical procedure, sterilization is associated with some anesthetic and surgical risk, but the overall incidence of complications is very low.

Before the procedure, your pet is given a thorough physical examination to ensure that he/she is in good health. General anesthesia is administered to perform the surgery and medications are given to minimize pain. You will be asked to keep your pet calm and quiet for a few days after surgery as the incision begins to heal.

When should I spay or neuter my pet?

Consult your veterinarian about the most appropriate time to spay or neuter your pet based upon his/her breed, age and physical condition. Keep in mind that, contrary to popular belief, it may NOT be best to wait until your female dog or cat has gone through her first heat cycle.

How do I decide?

Discuss your options with your veterinarian so you can get answers and make an educated decision.

​Related articles

Low-Cost Spay or Neuter

When Your Pet Needs Anesthesia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stay up-to-date and educate clients about the changing landscape of elective gonadectomy. Our gonadectomy resources for veterinarians include free CE webinars, a literature review of related research, and more. Many pet owners opt to spay or neuter their pets, and spaying and neutering are important for reducing pet overpopulation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The decision to spay or neuter your pet is an important one for pet owners. It can be the single best decision you make for their long-term welfare.

Reduce pet homelessness

In every community, in every state, there are homeless animals. In the U.S., there are an estimated 6-8 million homeless animals entering animal shelters every year. Barely half of these animals are adopted. Tragically, the rest are euthanized. These are healthy, sweet pets who would have made great companions.

The number of homeless animals varies by state-in some states there are as many as 300,000 homeless animals euthanized in animal shelters every year. These are not the offspring of homeless "street" animals-these are the puppies and kittens of cherished family pets and even purebreds.

Many people are surprised to learn that nationwide, more than 2.7 million healthy, adoptable cats and dogs are euthanized in shelters annually. Spay/neuter is the only permanent, 100 percent effective method of birth control for dogs and cats.

Your pet's health

A USA Today (May 7, 2013) article cites that pets who live in the states with the highest rates of spaying/neutering also live the longest. According to the report, neutered male dogs live 18% longer than un-neutered male dogs and spayed female dogs live 23% longer than unspayed female dogs. The report goes on to add that in Mississippi, the lowest-ranking state for pet longevity, 44% of the dogs are not neutered or spayed.

Part of the reduced lifespan of unaltered pets can be attributed to their increased urge to roam, exposing them to fights with other animals, getting struck by cars and other mishaps.

Another contributor to the increased longevity of altered pets involves the reduced risk of certain types of cancers. Unspayed female cats and dogs have a far greater chance of developing pyrometra (a fatal uterine infection), uterine cancer, and other cancers of the reproductive system.

Medical evidence indicates that females spayed before their first heat are typically healthier. (Many veterinarians now sterilize dogs and cats as young as eight weeks of age.)

Male pets who are neutered eliminate their chances of getting testicular cancer, and it is thought they they have lowered rates of prostate cancer, as well.

Getting your pets spayed/neutered will not change their fundamental personality, like their protective instinct. Read more spay/neuter myths

Curb bad behavior

Unneutered dogs are much more assertive and prone to urine-marking (lifting their leg) than neutered dogs. Although it is most often associated with male dogs, females may do it, too. Spaying or neutering your dog should reduce urine-marking and may stop it altogether.

For cats, the urge to spray is extremely strong in an intact cat, and the simplest solution is to get yours neutered or spayed by 4 months of age before there's even a problem. Neutering solves 90 percent of all marking issues, even in cats that have been doing it for a while. It can also minimize howling, the urge to roam and fighting with other males.

In both cats and dogs, the longer you wait, the greater the risk you run of the surgery not doing the trick because the behavior is so ingrained.

Other behavioral problems that can be ameliorated by spay/neuter include:

Roaming, especially when females are "in heat."

Aggression: Studies also show that most dogs bites involve dogs who are unaltered.

Excessive barking, mounting and other dominance-related behaviors.

While getting your pets spayed/neutered can help curb undesirable behaviors, it will not change their fundamental personality, like their protective instinct.

Cut costs

When you factor in the long-term costs potentially incurred by a non-altered pet, the savings afforded by spay/neuter are clear (especially given the plethora of low-cost spay/neuter clinics).

Caring for a pet with reproductive system cancer or pyometra can easily run into the thousands of dollars-five to ten times as much as a routine spay surgery. Additionally, unaltered pets can be more destructive or high-strung around other dogs. Serious fighting is more common between unaltered pets of the same gender and can incur high veterinary costs.

Renewing your pet's license can be more expensive, too. Many counties have spay/neuter laws that require pets to be sterilized or require people with unaltered pets to pay higher license renewal fees.

Spaying and neutering rabbits

Part of being conscientious about the pet overpopulation problem is to spay or neuter your pet rabbits, too. Rabbits reproduce faster than dogs or cats and often end up in shelters, where they must be euthanized. Neutering male rabbits can reduce hormone-driven behavior such as lunging, mounting, spraying, and boxing.

And just as with dogs and cats, spayed female rabbits are less likely to get ovarian, mammary and uterine cancers, which can be prevalent in mature females.

Millions of pet deaths each year are a needless tragedy. By spaying and neutering your pet, you can be an important part of the solution. Contact your veterinarian today and be sure to let your family and friends know that they should do the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The decision to spay or neuter your pet is an important one for pet owners. It can be the single best decision you make for their long-term welfare. In every community, in every state, there are homeless animals. In the U.S., there are an estimated 6-8 million homeless animals entering animal shelters every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The owner of Astro, an 8-year-old golden retriever in Colorado, decided not to neuter him for health reasons. (Courtesy of Valerie Robson)

Beneath the fluffy backsides of Valerie Robson's two male golden retrievers is an unusual sight: intact anatomy. Neither dog is neutered.

This presents occasional challenges. Astro and Rumble are barred from most doggy day-cares, and many boarding kennels won't take them. But although Robson has no intention of breeding the dogs, she says she has no regrets. Research that suggests neutering could be linked to cancers and joint disorders persuaded her that skipping sterilization was best for her pets.

"Sometimes people notice," said Robson, a county government employee in Conifer, Colo. "I just explain that we chose to do this for health and wellness, and he's a good boy, and it's never been an issue."

"Intact" dogs were the norm for a long time, and a litter of puppies was often part of the deal. But in the 1970s, when overflowing animal shelters were euthanizing millions of homeless dogs annually, spaying and neutering puppies - procedures that involve removing ovaries or testicles - became the dogma in the United States.

It still is: Surveys indicate a large majority of pet dogs are fixed, and 31 states and the District require that pets adopted from shelters or rescues be sterilized. The surgeries simplify pet ownership by preventing females from going into heat and, some believe, by improving dog behavior, though experts say that is not clearly supported by research.

But the common wisdom has been complicated in recent years amid widening evidence connecting spaying and neutering to health problems in dogs. The findings are stronger for certain breeds and large dogs, and age of neutering plays a role. But the research is causing some owners and veterinarians to question the long-held tenet that fixing puppies - or fixing, period - is a necessary part of responsible pet ownership.

"We owe it to our dogs to have a much larger conversation about spay and neuter," said Missy Simpson, a veterinary epidemiologist with the Morris Animal Foundation, a charity that funds animal health research. "It's nuanced, and there isn't a great one-size-fits-all recommendation for every dog."

Simpson was lead author of a recent paper on about 2,800 golden retrievers enrolled in a lifetime study, which found that those spayed or neutered were more likely to be overweight or obese. The study also found that dogs fixed before they were 6 months old had much higher rates of orthopedic injuries, and that keeping dogs lean didn't prevent those injuries.

The research has sparked controversy in the veterinary and shelter worlds, in part because widespread spaying and neutering are credited with helping fuel a dramatic decline in euthanasia. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which says about 670,000 dogs are killed in shelters each year, supports "early-age" sterilization.

"The question on a bigger level is to what extent are we sacrificing some bits of welfare for an individual animal for the welfare of the species?" said Stephen L. Zawistowski, science adviser emeritus at the ASPCA. "The fact that we can actually have the conversation is a sign that we've made such enormous progress."

'It is complicated'

Spaying and neutering do have some clear health benefits for dogs. Testicular and ovarian cancers are moot, and there's evidence that spaying lowers the risk of mammary cancer and uterine infections. Fixed dogs also live longer on average.

But researchers say the reproductive hormones controlled by the removed sex organs have important systemic roles. They influence muscle mass and tendon and ligament strength, and they tell bones when to stop growing. "Without those hormones, your body might just not be as robust," Simpson said.

The recent debate over spaying and neutering flared in 2013, when a study from the University of California at Davis reported higher rates of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tears and certain cancers among desexed golden retrievers - especially those neutered early, defined as before 1 year of age. The paper caused "quite a bit of controversy" among critics who "accused us of, you know, driving overpopulation of animals," said author Benjamin Hart, a professor emeritus at Davis's vet school.

Hart and his colleagues later found higher rates of joint disorders, but not cancers, among Labrador retrievers and German shepherds that were neutered early. Their latest study, which is not yet published, examined 35 breeds and mutts and detected no associations between desexing and cancers or joint disorders in small dogs. But it found much greater rates of joint disorders among nearly all large dogs sterilized early, Hart said.

"Dogs vary tremendously in their physiology, their anatomy. It's not surprising they would vary in these other things," Hart said. "It is complicated. That's why people need to talk it over with their veterinarian."

The American Veterinary Medical Association agrees, saying decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Michael Petty, a veterinarian in Canton, Mich., used to give the standard guidance: Spay or neuter at 6 months. But when he began seeing lots of ruptured cruciate ligaments among dogs neutered young, he wondered whether there was a connection. Based on research that has come out since, for the past decade or so, he has advised clients to hold off on sterilization until dogs reach puberty.

It's easier to spay a puppy than an adult dog, Petty said. "But are we causing a problem down the road? We really have to say: First, do no harm."

Spaying and neutering are much less common in Europe. Alexandra Horowitz, a dog cognition researcher at Barnard College, says in her new book, " Our Dogs, Ourselves," that their widespread use here is an indictment of Americans' too-casual approach to pet ownership.

"We're asking dogs to take on the responsibility for our actions," Horowitz said in an interview - and, she added, for our squeamishness. "Our culture is so caught up in the notion that our dogs shouldn't be sexual, and spay-neuter kind of feeds into that."

'Be realistic about it'

Owning intact dogs can be less convenient. Females bleed when in heat, and males are more prone to urine-marking.

Robson, the owner of Rumble and Astro, said her dogs don't do that. Her first five dogs were rescues, and all were fixed before she took them in. But when she purchased Astro, his breeder had a condition: Don't neuter until he's 2. By then, Astro's vet - citing research on neutered golden retrievers and cancer - suggested that she leave him intact.

Astro is "so mellow," Robson said, that she agreed. It helps that they live on a lot of land in the Denver foothills, far from other dogs.

"As an owner, you have to be comfortable with your ability to supervise them and to make sure they're not going to run off and do something stupid and get caught with a girl," said Robson, whose younger dog, Rumble, is enrolled in the golden retriever lifetime study.

Sherri Wilson, an accountant in Grand Junction, Colo., had a similar experience. The breeder of her 5-year-old golden retriever, Bailey, asked that she wait until he was 18 months old to neuter him.

"We got to 18 months, and it was like, why would we do it? He had no behavior problems, no aggression," she said. "We couldn't see a reason to do it, and we could see several reasons not to do it."

People active in dog sports pay close attention to research on joint problems, and many now choose not to spay or neuter, said Wendy Garvin, a dog trainer in Riverton, Utah. Her five intact pooches do agility, dock-diving and other sports.

Four years ago, Garvin started a Facebook group that offers advice on managing dogs that aren't spayed or neutered. Owners need to know how to keep males and females apart when necessary, she said, and how to recognize when females are coming into heat (in her house, she said, it's when "the boys get stupid," doing things like licking the females' privates and humping).

"There are people who would love to sell you a bundle of roses with it," she said. "I would rather be realistic about it."

Garvin said the Facebook group grows by about 20 to 30 people each month, many ordinary pet owners. In some cases, she recommends that they opt for vasectomies or hysterectomies for their dogs - procedures that prevent reproduction but spare hormones. A small but growing number of veterinarians perform them.

"People are pretty capable if they take ownership of their responsibility," she said. But, she added, "none of us want to see more unwanted puppies."

How 3,000 very good golden retrievers could help all dogs live longer

What makes dogs so special and successful? Love.

As humans shaped dogs' bodies, we also altered their brains

How many Americans have pets? An investigation of fuzzy statistics.

Discover something new:

We've curated these stories to inspire your curiosity.

Understanding your browser's privacy issues

Our tech reviewer found more than 11,000 requests in a week for trackers from websites in Google Chrome. The browser even welcomed trackers from websites you would think were private, like Aetna and the Federal Student Aid website.

Get smart about why cocktails are so expensive

A restaurant's overall profit margin is about 4 to 6 percent, according to the National Restaurant Association. But cocktail profit margins are 15 to 25 percent.

How we got here: Gene-edited farm animals

Scientists in labs across the world have created farm animals that are resistant to viruses, can tolerate heat or grow more fat and muscle. But regulation, safety concerns and public skepticism may prevent these gene-edited animals from going to market.

Today's Headlines

The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The growing debate over spaying and neutering dogs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beneath the fluffy backsides of Valerie Robson's two male golden retrievers is an unusual sight: intact anatomy. Neither dog is neutered. This presents occasional challenges. Astro and Rumble are barred from most doggy day-cares, and many boarding kennels won't take them. But although Robson has no intention of breeding the dogs, she says she has no regrets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cosmetic surgery: Customer service or professional misconduct

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this article "cosmetic surgery" is defined as any medically unnecessary surgical procedure. Whether cosmetic surgery is viewed as part of the customer service provided by a veterinarian or falls under professional misconduct depends entirely on the location of your practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Q: Why did we start docking dogs' tails?

Tail docking of dogs is believed to have arisen for three reasons at different points in history. In ancient times Romans believed that amputation of the tail tip and/or parts of the dog's tongue could prevent a dog from contracting rabies. 1.2 Because the tail was believed to help a dog in the chase, dogs were historically docked if they were owned by a poor person not permitted to hunt game. ² (Ironically, it is sometimes argued that docking increases a dog's strength or speed. ³) There is a continuing tradition of docking working dogs' tails with the goal of preventing tail injury during activities such as hunting (see related question below). Early references, however, tended to suggest docking only in cases where the tail was overly long for the size of the animal and, therefore, might be prone to injury. ⁴

Q: When did tail docking for cosmetic purposes begin?

A: Tail docking seems to have emerged for a variety of reasons, but for some breeds it was proposed primarily to improve appearance. Books from different periods openly refer to docking of some breeds to create a pleasing appearance (e.g. The American Book of the Dog, 1891, p. 619, 669 ⁵; also ⁶). The most consistent anecdotal argument for preventive docking relates to hunting with pointers; even in this case, however, the purpose of increasing 'beauty' is mentioned. Rules for pedigree dog shows in the United States established during the mid-1950s formalized the docking tradition within some breed fancies regardless of the origin of the practice.

The history of veterinary opposition to cosmetic tail docking is long. One example from the United States being characterization of cosmetic tail docking as "indefensible" in The Dog by Youatt & Lewis (1854). ⁸ Most veterinarians tend not to support routine, cosmetic tail docking as part of a breed standard, 9,10,11 however, there is a lack of data relating specifically to the attitudes of veterinarians in the United States and there are dissenting opinions (just as some breeders have opposed docking in breeds where this is traditional, see ¹²).

The AVMA first suggested breed clubs remove cosmetic alterations from breed standards in 1976, although the presence and phrasing of this recommendation within the Association's policy has varied over the years. Opposition to tail docking is also the stated policy of other veterinary associations (e.g., Canada, 13 Australia, ¹⁴ and the United Kingdom ¹⁵).

Q: What is the current basis for carrying out preventive tail amputation/partial amputation on working dogs?

A: Some commentators consider a long tail to be a potential hazard for some breeds of working dogs. For example, it has been suggested that:

A guard dog could be seized by the tail to thwart its attack.⁷

Hunting dogs, such as pointers, may damage their tail tip in underbrush.⁸,4,16

Long-haired dogs may become more soiled if they have a hanging tail. ¹⁷

These justifications for docking working dogs' tails lack substantial scientific support. In the largest study to date on tail injuries in dogs the incidence was 0.23% and it was calculated that approximately 500 dogs need to be docked to prevent one tail injury. ¹⁸ It has been suggested that certain breeds of dogs, or dogs used for specific purposes, have a greater incidence of tail injury. An uncontrolled study of German Shorthaired Pointers in Sweden suggested there might be a high level of tail injury subsequent to a ban on docking. 19 Diesel et al ¹⁸ reported that working dogs (predominantly gundogs) were not at significantly greater risk of tail injury than non-working dogs, but dogs that were kenneled were at increased risk. Differences between breeds that are docked and those that are not are often minor. For example among the very similar Pointer, German Longhaired Pointer and German Shorthaired Pointer, only the German Shorthaired Pointer is traditionally docked. ²⁰

Q: Why is tail docking currently carried out on non-working dogs?

A: Tail docking of some breeds may be based on a belief that their non-working members experience risks similar to working dogs; more commonly, however, it is to conform to a distinctive breed appearance or standard. Survey data indicate that preventive tail docking of pet dogs is unnecessary. 18,21 Therefore tail docking of non-working dogs, even if their breed was originally developed for working purposes, is considered a cosmetic procedure unless evidence exists to the contrary. In countries such as the United Kingdom where tail docking is legally prohibited (with a few exemptions) the breed standards of traditionally docked breeds have been amended. ²²

Q: Do dogs need to have tails?

A: It is natural for most dogs to have tails based upon their descent from a tailed species. However there is no strong evidence that naturally bobbed or surgically docked dogs are physically or psychologically disadvantaged. There is some early, but inconclusive, data that raises questions as to whether docking impairs communication with other dogs ²³ or may increase the risk of developing incontinence. ²⁴

Q: Is tail docking painful?

A: Tailing docking is painful. ²⁵ The intensity or duration of the pain under ideal or typical circumstances is difficult to quantify. Painful procedures conducted in the neonatal period when the nervous system is vulnerable can result in negative long-term changes which affect how pain is processed and perceived later in life. 26,27

Q: Why does AVMA policy oppose cosmetic tail docking?

A: The essential question is not "How harmful is the procedure?", but rather "Is there sufficient justification for performing it?" Performing a surgical procedure for cosmetic purposes (i.e., for the sake of appearance) implies the procedure is not medically indicated. Because dogs have not been shown to derive self-esteem or pride in appearance from having their tails docked (common reasons for performing cosmetic procedures on people), there is no obvious benefit to our patients in performing this procedure. The only benefit that appears to be derived from cosmetic tail docking of dogs is the owner's impression of a pleasing appearance. In the opinion of the AVMA, this is insufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure.

Q: What forms of tail removal would not be considered cosmetic?

A: The naturally bobbed animal is not considered "docked." Bobbed genetics exist in many pedigreed breeds (e.g., Old English Sheepdog, Australian Shepherd ¹⁷) and have been introduced into others (e.g., Boxer ²⁸). Some breeders, both historically and currently, would prefer problematic conformation to be corrected via breeding alone.

Removal of a dog's tail for medical reasons is not referred to as "docking." The most common reason for amputation or partial amputation of a dog's tail is traumatic injury where repair of the entire tail is not possible or advisable. Amputation may also occur in the case of tail deformities that negatively impact a dog's function or increase risk of injury. An argument might be made for removal of the tail of a dog on the basis of repeated prior injury.

Precautionary removal of the tail of a young puppy needs to be based on compelling evidence that the animal is at high risk of tail trauma due to congenital defect, breed and/or planned working activity. However, such a justification must be supported by evidence such as empirical data or impartial expert opinion based on extensive, directly relevant experience.

REFERENCES

1. Podberscek AL, Paul AS, Serpell J. Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the Relationships Between People and Pets. Cambridge University Press, 2000; 307.
2. Fleming. The wanton mutilation of animals. The Nineteenth Century, a Monthly Report, 1895;37:440.
3. Drury WD. British Dogs, Their Points, Selection, and Show Preparation. L.U. Gill: London. 1903. p. 165
4. Hallock C. The Sportsman's Gazetteer and General Guide. Forest and Stream: New York. 1877. p. 456.
5. Shields G. The American Book of the Dog. Rand, McNally: Chicago. 1891
6. almer, RM. All about Airedales: A Book of General Information Valuable to Dog Lovers and Owners, Breeders and Fanciers, Illustrated from Selected Photographs of Noted Dogs and Rare Scenes. The Airedale Terrier Reviewed. 3-A Publishing Co.: Seattle. 1916; 53.
7. Coren, S. How Dogs Think: Understanding the Canine Mind. Simon and Schuster, 2004; 106
8. Youatt W, Lewis EJ. The Dog. Leavitt and Allen, 1857 Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=wxkPAAAAYAAJ Accessed December 15, 2008.
9. Bennett PC, Perini E. Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved? Aust Vet J 2003;81:277-82.
10. Sonntag, Q. Cosmetic tail docking. Vet News 2004;Feb:4-5.
11. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK, et al. Tail docking in dogs: a sample of attitudes of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland. Aust Vet J 1996;73:86-88.
12. Lytton, N. Toy Dogs and Their Ancestors: Including the History and Management of Toy Spaniels, Pekingese, Japanese and Pomeranians. Duckworth & Co: London. 1911; 91.
13. Moissac, JE. The fight against cosmetic surgery. Canadian Veterinary Journal 2009;50:11231124.
14. Australian Veterinary Association: Surgical alteration to the natural state of animals: http://www.ava.com.au/node/1085 accessed January 31, 2013
14. RCVS Guide to professional Conduct: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/guide-to-professional-conduc... accessed January 31 2013.
16. Lee RB. A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland. H. Cox: London. 1897. p. 220-221.
17. Sasson-Brickson G. The bobtail trait in Australian shepherds - part I: a historical perspective and docking Regulations in various countries. Aussie Times 2005;March-April
18. Diesel G, Pfeiffer D, Crispin S, et al. Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain. Vet Rec 2010;166:812-817.
19. Strejffert G. Tail injuries of shorthaired German point dogs born in Sweden 1989, 1992 http://www.cdb.org/countries/sweden.htm Accessed June 28, 2010
20. Milne, E. The Truth about Cats and Dogs. Book Guild Publishing, 2007; 118.
21. Darke PG, Thrusfield MV, Aitken CG. Association between tail injuries and docking in dogs. Vet Rec 1985;116:409
22. Kennel Club: Breed Standard tail clauses - traditionally docked breeds: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=1359 Accessed January 31st 2013
23. Leaver, SDA, Reimchen TE. Behavioural responses of Canis Familiaris to different tail lengths of a remotely-controlled life-size dog replica. Behaviour 2008;145:377-390.
24. Thrusfield P, Holt M. Association in bitches between breed, size, neutering and docking, and acquired urinary incontinence due to incompetence of the urethral sphincter mechanism. Vet Rec 1993;133:177-180.
25. Noonan G, Rand J, Blackshaw J, et al. Behavioural observations of puppies undergoing tail docking. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1996;4: 335-342.
26. LaPrarie JL, Murphy AZ. Long Term Impact of Neonatal Injury in Male and Female Rats: Sex Differences, Mechanisms and Clinical Implications. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 2010;31:193-202.
27. Vega-Avelaira D, McKelvy R, Hathway G et al. The emergence of adolescent onset pain hypersensitivity following neonatal nerve injury. Molecular Pain 2012;8:30. Accessible online at: http://www.molecularpain.com/content/8/1/30
28. Haworth K, Putt W, Cattanach B et al. Canine homolog of the T-box transcription factor T; failure of the protein to bind to its DNA target leads to a short-tail phenotype. Mammalian Genome 2001;12:212-218.

ekane srobertson srobertson Source: Staff research, AVMA Animal Welfare Division
Contact: avma [dot] org (Dr. Emily G. Patterson-Kane) (800.248.2862, ext 6746) or avma [dot] org avma [dot] org (Dr. Sheilah A. Robertson ) (800.248.2862, ext 6685) with questions or comments.

This information has been prepared as a service by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Redistribution is acceptable, but the document's original content and format must be maintained, and its source must be prominently identified.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Q: Why did we start docking dogs' tails? Tail docking of dogs is believed to have arisen for three reasons at different points in history. In ancient times Romans believed that amputation of the tail tip and/or parts of the dog's tongue could prevent a dog from contracting rabies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Declawing and Alternatives for Cats - Veterinary Partner - VIN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Purebred dogs are purpose-bred dogs and come in all shapes and sizes. The characteristics that make each of these dogs unique also help them perform the function for which they were bred.

The physical appearance of the dogs illustrates this, and is also an important part of the breed's history. For example, the thick body and heavy fur on a St. Bernard make it the perfect dog for mountain rescue. The long, narrow body of a Dachshund (German for "badger hunter") allows it to burrow underground to hunt badgers.

Many owners of specific breeds wish to maintain their dog's historic practical function by having their puppy's ears cropped, tails docked, or dewclaws removed. While some unfamiliar with the breeds believe that this is purely aesthetic, these procedures actually enhance the dog's ability to perform the tasks it is meant to do.

Debarking is another hotly debated procedure. This is not purely a procedure of convenience, but rather a viable option that allows a dog in certain circumstances to remain in its loving home rather than being sent to a shelter.

Understanding the Procedures

Ear cropping, tail docking, dewclaw removal and debarking are procedures that are increasingly debated in the general public and in public policy. To help gain insight on these issues, let's begin by defining these terms:

Ear cropping is a procedure by which a dog's ears are trimmed, or "cropped", so that they can stand erect rather than flop over. Common examples of dogs with cropped ears are Boston Terriers, Great Danes and Doberman Pinschers. The AKC currently recognizes 20 breeds with cropped ears.

Tail docking refers to the removal of a portion of the tail. The length that is docked varies depending on the breed. Dogs with docked tails include Cocker Spaniels, Rottweilers, and Yorkshire Terriers. Currently 62 breeds recognized by the AKC have docked tails. Some dogs, such as the Old English Sheepdog and Australian Shepherd, may appear to be docked, but may have actually been born with a "bobtail", or naturally short tail.

Dewclaw removal is a procedure by which the dewclaws, which are essentially extra claws that serve little to no purpose for the majority of dogs, are removed. Most dogs are born with dewclaws.

Debarking, or "bark softening" is a veterinary procedure that softens a dog's bark by altering a dog's vocal cords with a laser or biopsy tool. The dog may still bark, but at a softer volume. When performed correctly by a veterinarian, the most common method is non-invasive, takes just a couple minutes to perform, and again has no lasting negative effects.

Tail docking and dewclaw removal are performed shortly after birth, when the puppy's nervous system is not fully developed. As a result, the puppy feels little to no pain, and there are no lasting negative health issues. Some lawmakers have sought to require anesthesia for these procedures. However, since they are performed so soon after birth, anesthesia should not be required, as this could be life-threatening for the young puppy. Waiting until they are old enough to handle anesthesia would actually result in a more painful and traumatic procedure.

Much of the opposition regarding these procedures comes from a misunderstanding of why and how they are performed. Many believe that these procedures are painful, performed purely for convenience or cosmetic reasons and have no value. This is completely false. In fact, these practices are significantly less painful and much less physically traumatic for the dogs than common surgeries such as spaying and neutering. Each of these procedures is a safe, humane standard practice that serves a practical purpose, and in the case of ear cropping and tail docking, preserves a dog's ability to perform its historic function.

A Historical Perspective

All dogs recognized by the AKC are placed in one of seven groups based on the tasks they were developed and often continue to perform. These include the Herding, Terrier, Working and Sporting Groups, among others. Ear cropping and tail docking are historical procedures performed in some cases for over 100 years that help some dogs better and more safely perform the functions for which they were originally bred.

The Boxer, for example, is a working dog that has traditionally been used for a number of important tasks including serving as guard and courier dogs for soldiers and seeing-eye dogs for the blind. The cropped ears help enhance the Boxer's hearing, thereby helping it perform its tasks to the best of its ability.

Other dogs, such as the Brussels Griffon, were historically kept in stables to catch vermin or other pests. Cropping the ears protected them from damaging bites when cornering a rat or another unwelcome animal.

Hunting and sporting breeds such as spaniels often go into thick brush to track game. While some of these breeds (such as a Labrador Retriever) have thick, strong tails or tails with thick hair, other breeds that have weaker tails with often wispy hair are prone to injury when they run through thick brush or brambles.

In the same way, a docked tail on a terrier makes it stronger, which helps an owner more safely and easily pull these burrowing dogs out of holes. For example, the bottom two-thirds of the Airedale Terrier's tail is very strong and may be used to help pull them to safety when they are digging and hunting animals in the ground. The last third, however, is very weak and fragile. When not docked, the tail is prone to breaking, splitting or other serious injuries.

Practical Considerations

Like ear cropping and tail docking, dewclaw removal and debarking serve a practical purpose. These are not procedures of convenience, but rather safe and standard animal husbandry practices designed to protect the safety and welfare of dogs.

For most dogs, a "dewclaw" is essentially an extra claw. While a few dogs, such as the Norwegian Lundehund, use them to scale rocky cliffs, the dewclaw serves virtually no purpose for most dogs. Working or other active dogs are prone to getting them caught and torn, causing extreme pain and significant injury. For these cases, it is better for them to be removed shortly after birth, where there is little or no pain, rather than to risk serious injury and infection later.

Debarking is a veterinary procedure that may ultimately prevent a dog from ending up in a shelter or euthanized. Both the AKC and the American Veterinary Medical Association believe that this is a viable veterinary procedure that may be an option for some owners when other efforts to correct excessive barking have failed. This safe, viable procedure will soften the dog's bark to a level that will not be a disturbance to the neighborhood, thereby allowing an owner to keep a dog whose excessive barking could otherwise be considered a nuisance. The AKC and the AVMA also agree that this procedure should only be performed by a qualified, licensed veterinarian.

Public Policy Considerations

The American Kennel Club and its local dog clubs throughout the country are extremely concerned about animal cruelty and are dedicated to the breeding and raising of healthy, happy dogs.

We strongly support laws that target irresponsible owners and those who would mistreat or harm animals. Likewise, it is important that any legislation seeking to protect dogs not prevent these procedures which can protect the dog's safety and welfare. Standard, safe animal husbandry practices that preserve the ability of purpose-bred dogs to excel at the functions for which they were bred should remain safe and legal and never be construed as cruelty. In the same way, debarking should not be banned. The decision to debark, like other health care decisions, is one best left to the dog's owner in conjunction with their veterinarian, and should not be subject to arbitrary government regulations or restrictions.

Clearly defining animal cruelty, neglect and mistreatment in statute will protect the safety of dogs and hold owners accountable without placing arbitrary restrictions on safe, accepted procedures that allow dogs to excel at the tasks they were bred to perform and, in the case of debarking, allow them to remain in loving homes.
Originally printed in the American Kennel Club's In Session newsletter, Spring Issue 2011.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Issue Analysis: Dispelling the Myths of Cropped Ears, Docked Tails, Dewclaws, and Debarking - American Kennel Club

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purebred dogs are purpose-bred dogs and come in all shapes and sizes. The characteristics that make each of these dogs unique also help them perform the function for which they were bred. The physical appearance of the dogs illustrates this, and is also an important part of the breed's history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Literature Reviews

June 2018

This peer-reviewed summary has been prepared by the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Division. While principally a review of the scientific literature, it may also include information gleaned from proprietary data, legislative and regulatory review, market conditions, and scholarly ethical assessments. It is provided as information and its contents should not be construed as official AVMA policy. Mention of trade names, products, commercial practices or organizations does not imply endorsement by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

.pdf version

Devocalization (also termed debarking, devoicing or bark softening) is a surgical procedure performed under general anesthesia to resect varying amounts of the vocal folds or cords.

The Issue

Devocalization may be performed on dogs to decrease the volume, pitch and intensity of the dog's bark. The procedure has variable success and is associated with some risks that are supported by published case studies. Venticulocordectomy is described in small animal surgery texts primarily for therapeutic purposes, such as laryngeal paralysis and to remove vocal fold masses. Removal of most of the vocal cord has been recommended if the procedure is to be used to address barking, as resumption of a near normal bark may occur within months if only the vocal fold margin is removed.

Between 3.2 and 7% of dogs seen by veterinary behavioral practices are evaluated for excessive barking, but these numbers may underestimate the prevalence of this problem. In one survey almost 13% of owners identified this as a concern and excessive barking comprises the majority of animal-related complaints in some municipalities. While excessive barking is a common problem, the limited data that exists suggests that the number of dogs for which resolution is accomplished by venticulocordectomy is small. Most often other approaches, discussed under techniques for decreasing barking (below), are used to address the issue.

Reasons Given For The Practice

Animal benefits - If behavioral and management interventions have failed to reduce barking, performing the procedure may prevent relinquishment or euthanasia.

Human benefits - Reduced noise pollution and damage to human hearing in large kennel facilities, less annoyance from dogs that bark excessively, fewer complaints regarding barking dogs, and increased compliance with stringent noise ordinances in some communities (which if violated could lead to eviction or legal action) have all been cited as reasons for devocalizing dogs.

Welfare Concerns

Barking is a normal canine behavior. Auditory cues supplement visual and postural cues as a means of communication, especially if visual cues are obscured. Dogs may bark in play, as a greeting, as a warning, to gain attention, and while working (e.g., driving cattle). When barking is considered excessive and becomes a problem is highly variable among owners and influenced by many factors.

Excessive barking is commonly associated with an underlying welfare issue with the dog. Reasons for excessive barking may include poor training, boredom, social isolation, response to external stimuli, territorial protection, and behavioral problems, including anxiety, compulsive disorder and separation anxiety. Devocalization reduces the noise associated with barking, but not the motivation or behavior.

Risks Associated with Devocalization

General anesthesia - Devocalization is carried out under general anesthesia, which itself has inherent risks and associated mortality.

Post-operative discomfort - As for any surgical procedure, pain and discomfort can occur during healing.

Potential complications - Bleeding, acute airway swelling, infection, coughing, gagging and aspiration pneumonia can occur after vocal cord surgery. There is a substantial risk for development of scar tissue and glottis stenosis (narrowing of the throat) after laryngeal surgery.2,11,12,13,14,15 One study cited that 14% of dogs experienced scarring following oral ventriculodectomy, performed for therapeutic reasons. Clinical signs resulting from scar formation (laryngeal webbing) include exercise intolerance, dyspnea (respiratory distress), stridor (noisy breathing), collapse and heat intolerance; affected dogs require further surgical intervention to ameliorate the problem. In a retrospective study of dogs that underwent therapeutic bilateral ventriculocordectomy for laryngeal paralysis, 24% required revision surgery. In this same study, it was mentioned that the ventral laryngotomy approach reduced the frequency of scarring, however this approach is also more invasive and costly than the transoral method.

Resumption of a near normal bark can also occur within months.

Techniques For Decreasing Barking

Identification of the underlying cause of excessive barking is essential so that targeted therapies can be used and requires a carefully taken behavioral history. A study assessing the patterns and frequency of dogs investigated in nuisance barking complaints found that 84% were confined to the backyard in the absence of their owners, and nearly every instance was suggestive of reactive barking due to a recurring environmental stimulus. Corrective techniques may include environmental manipulation, behavioral modification, medication or combinations of these therapies. There have been positive correlations cited between positive reinforcement and other reward-based obedience training tools and decreases in excessive barking behaviors.

Punishment may inhibit a behavior but it does not change the motivation. Hitting and yelling are ineffectual and unacceptable. Several remote forms of punishment that are intended to startle a dog rather than to inflict physical pain have been used in an attempt to decrease barking. These include antibarking devices that emit loud or high-pitched sounds (collars or freestanding devices) and electric shock collars (activated by the dog or remotely by the owner). The citronella spray collar is considered a form of punishment, but is more acceptable to many people and is used where shocking devices are prohibited (e.g. Australia, Europe). These collars release an odor that is unfamiliar to the dog and serve as a distracting stimulus that can re-direct behavior to interrupt barking and facilitate training. In one study, the citronella spray collar was more effective than an electric shock collar at reducing barking (88.9 versus 44.4% decrease, respectively) and was perceived as more humane by owners. To prevent habituation, intermittent use of a citronella collar has been suggested.

Social facilitation can be a causative factor in chain reactions of barking behavior, thus higher numbers of dogs in close proximity may increase nuisance barking. In large kennel facilities, noise levels can be successfully reduced by good building and pen design, altering husbandry techniques, and using suitable socialization and training programs.

Legislation And Policy

The American Kennel Club states that "debarking is a viable veterinary procedure that may allow a dog owner to keep a dog that barks excessively in its loving home rather than to be forced to surrender it to a shelter. Debarking should only be performed by a qualified, licensed veterinarian after other behavioral modification efforts to correct excessive barking have failed. As with other veterinary medical decisions, the decision to debark a dog is best left to individual owners and their veterinarians."

In addition to the AVMA, many veterinary organizations including the American Animal Hospital Association and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association oppose non-therapeutic devocalization of dogs except after behavioral modifications and management methods have failed and as a final alternative to relinquishment or euthanasia. Under the United Kingdom's Animal Welfare Act (2006), "carrying out of a procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment" is an offense. The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals lists devocalization under the list of surgical operations that "for the purpose of modifying the appearance of a pet animal or for other non-curative purposes shall be prohibited."

The British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation (BVAAWF)/Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)/Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)/Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) Joint Working Group on Refinement (dog husbandry and care) view debarking as unacceptable and describe many other ways to reduce noise in kennels.

There are currently four states that have laws prohibiting devocalization of dogs under certain circumstances. Massachusetts and New Jersey prohibit devocalization except in cases where it is medically necessary as determined by a licensed veterinarian. Pennsylvania prohibits devocalization of any dog for any reason unless the procedure is performed by a licensed veterinarian using anesthesia. Legislation in Ohio states that "No person shall do any of the following: Debark or surgically silence a dog that the person knows or has reason to believe is a vicious dog; or possess a vicious dog if the person knows or has reason to believe that the dog has been debarked or surgically silenced." Additionally, California and Rhode Island have adopted legislation making it unlawful to make devocalization an obligatory condition of real estate occupancy for tenants who own dogs.

Devocalization is a surgical procedure with potential for complications. Environmental manipulation, behavioral modification and medication are often successful for reducing barking, but identification of the underlying cause of excessive barking is important for tailoring treatment in each situation.

1. Holt DE. Treatment of laryngeal paralysis by bilateral ventriculocordectomy. In: Bojrab MJ, Ellison GW, Slocum B, eds. Current techniques in small animal surgery. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1998;362-365.

2. Fossum TW. Surgery of the upper respiratory system. In: Fossum TW, ed. Small Animal Surgery 4th Edition. Mosby Elsevier, 2013;919-921, 923.

3. Juarbe-Diaz SV. Assessment and treatment of excessive barking in the domestic dog. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1997; 27:515-532.

4. Beaver BV. Owner complaints about canine behavior. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994;204:1953-1955

5. Raglus, TI, De Groef, B, Marston, LC. Can bark counter collars and owner surveys help identify factors that relate to nuisance barking? A pilot study. J Vet Behav. 2015; 10:204-209.

6. Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement 123rd General Assembly of Ohio. Available at: http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/123ga/hb0350h1.htm. Accessed February 4, 2012.

7. Stafford K. Behavioral problems. In: Stafford K, ed. The welfare of dogs. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007; 199-213.

8. Stafford K. The domestication, behavior and use of the dog. In: Stafford K, ed. The welfare of dogs. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007;1-29.

9. Stafford K. Training methods. In: Stafford K, ed. The welfare of dogs. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007;129-142.

10. Brodbelt D. Perioperative mortality in small animal anaesthesia. Vet J. 2009;182:152-61

11. Mehl ML, Kyles AE, Pypendop BH, et al. Outcome of laryngeal web resection with mucosal apposition for treatment of airway obstruction in dogs: 15 cases (1992-2006). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2008;233:738-42.

12. Holt D, Harvey C. Glottic stenosis secondary to vocal fold resection: results of scar removal and corticosteroid treatment in nine dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1994;30:396-400.

13. Peterson SL, Smith MM. Evaluation of a stented laryngoplasty for correction of cranial glottis stenosis in four dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1987;191:1582-1584.

14. Matushek KJ, Bjorling DE. A mucosal flap technique for correction of laryngeal webbing - results in four dogs. Vet Surg. 1988;17:318-320.

15. Bahr, KL, Howe, L, Jessen, C, Goodrich, Z. Outcome of 45 dogs with laryngeal paralysis treated by unilateral arytenoid lateralization or bilateral ventriculocordectomy. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2014; 50:264-272.

16. Wells DL. The effectiveness of a citronella spray collar in reducing certain forms of barking in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2001;73:299-309.

17. Juarbe-Diaz SV, Houpt KA. Comparison of two antibarking collars for treatment of nuisance barking. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1996;32:231-235.

18. BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement - Refining dog husbandry and care. Lab Anim. 2004;38 (Suppl 1): 1-88.

19. American Kennel Club Canine Legislation Position Statements: Available at: http://cdn.akc.org/Government_Relations/Debarking_2017.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2018.

20. AAHA Canine Devocalization Position Statement: Available at: https://www.aaha.org/professional/resources/canine_devocalization.aspx#gsc.tab=0. Accessed June 1, 2018.

21. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association devocalization of dogs position statement: Available at: https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/documents/devocalization-of-dogs-position-statement. Accessed June 1, 2018.

22. The Animal Welfare Act (2006). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents. Accessed February 9, 2012.

23. European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=125&CL=ENG. Accessed February 8, 2012.

24. AVMA State Legislative Resources: Available at: https://www.avma.org/Advocacy/StateAndLocal/Pages/sr-elective-procedures.aspx. Accessed June 1, 2018.

25. Ohio Revised Code, Sec. 955.22 (effective 10/10/2000). Available at: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/955.22. Accessed February 6, 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welfare Implications of Canine Devocalization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June 2018 This peer-reviewed summary has been prepared by the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Division. While principally a review of the scientific literature, it may also include information gleaned from proprietary data, legislative and regulatory review, market conditions, and scholarly ethical assessments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Controlling Feral Cat Colonies

Feral cat colonies exist in Central Pennsylvania. To help control the overpopulation problem, CPHS has been able to offer TNR. This is the recommended method nationwide for controlling feral cat colonies.

You Can Help!

You can help the CPHS control feral cat problems with a donation to our TNR program. The cost of one surgery is $50.

If you would like to help continue the TNR program, please donate online or call us at 814-942-5402 or mail a check with memo "TNR" to the Shelter at

Central PA Humane Society

1837 E. Pleasant Valley Boulevard

Altoona, PA 16602

ATTN TNR PROGRAM

How TNR Works

TNR or Trap/Neuter/Release

is a planned, humane program for bringing feral cats to a local clinic for spay or neutering, the left ear is tipped during surgery (the universal symbol of an altered feline) and after recovery, the cats are taken back to where they were trapped for release. TNR offers these cats a healthier life in the wild.

Cats coming into the CPHS Shelter have dropped by 1,378 or 53% since 2011. With all other operations at the Shelter being the same, we attribute this successful decrease to the TNR program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trap/Neuter/Release | Central PA Humane Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Feral cat colonies exist in Central Pennsylvania. To help control the overpopulation problem, CPHS has been able to offer TNR. This is the recommended method nationwide for controlling feral cat colonies. You can help the CPHS control feral cat problems with a donation to our TNR program.