Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association Opposes the Devocalization Bill

by Michael
(London, UK)

Update 25th April 2010: Good News…Great News…This law has been passed and signed off by Gov. Patrick. It is called “Logan’s Law”. The law bans devocalization, the practice of cutting vocal cords to stifle or remove an animal’s voice. The law apparently allows vocal cord surgery on dogs and cats to treat disease, injury or birth defects. This should be on very rare occasions. The law is named in memory of a show dog whose breeder had him devocalized and then didn’t want him when he stopped winning at shows. Callous and cruel behavior. There are at least a couple of similar cases mentioned in the video below.

I hope that the banning of this ‘convenience surgery’ leads to the banning of another convenience surgery; declawing.

What follows is the original posting…Yes, it is true, the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) opposes the Devocalization Bill proposed by the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is a repeat of the California Veterinary Medical Association’s opposing to the declawing of cats when 8 cities in California passed legislation to ban declawing. The vets really are two faced aren’t they?

I present four topics here:

  • What the devocalisation bill intends to do
  • The reasons why the MVMA opposes it
  • My comments
  • Links

The Devocalisation Bill

It creates a criminal offense. Only a veterinarian licensed in the state can perform the devocalisation operation (implying that non professional people currently do it). A veterinarian who wishes to perform the operation must file a written certificate with

“the town clerk or in Boston, the police commissioner, stating that the surgical debarking or silencing is medically necessary to treat or relieve an illness, disease, or injury, or correct a congenital abnormality that is causing or will cause the dog or cat medical harm or pain.”

Pretty simple and utterly reasonable you would think. It is not an outright ban. The proposed legislation is simply overseeing the practice to ensure that the operation is for the benefit of the cat or dog.

The MVMA’s reasons to oppose it

More horrible weasel words. More self serving rubbish, I am afraid. These associations have totally lost their way in terms of morality and decent decision making.

First (as usual) they make the usual cliched sympathy statement just to try (desperately) to get us (the public) on their side – you failed I am afraid.

The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association, the statewide association of veterinarians, deplores devocalizing an animal to facilitate the animal?s sale or for reasons of convenience.

They then use the well worn “declawing cats route”. They say that there are times when a cat’s life can be saved by devocalising it!! True – a meow can be such a problem to a cat owner that is has to be relinquished and euthanised. Under these circumstances it must be an option they say and the decision should be made by a veterinarian in consultation with the client (the cat or dog owner). This is the blind leading the blind to a place called hell.

They oppose House No. 344 (the devocalisation bill) for the following reasons (recited verbatim for accuracy):

  • the bill requires that otherwise confidential information – such as the animal’s identification and medical diagnosis, and identification and location of the animal’s owner – be made public: we find no precedent for such public disclosure in medicine or veterinary medicine except when public health is at issue
  • the bill provides too narrow an exception for performing devocalization, in that “medically necessary” is not the only legitimate reason for this procedure to be performed: surgical cordectomy may be necessary to save an animal’s life when euthanasia is seen as the only viable alternative
  • the bill infringes upon a veterinarian’s exercise of her or his professional judgment, taking account of the particular condition and circumstances of the individual animal.


Well, it’s the same old rubbish, really. They don’t give the real reason which is that they see this bill as the thin end of the wedge. Although they say only a small number of veterinarians perform the operation, which is apparently tricky and often calls for follow up procedures and more pain and discomfort for the cat and dog, they are frightened that taking decision making away from them will lead to a ban on declawing and then what…

The truth is that they are unfit to make decisions on the welfare of cats because the criteria they use in decision making turns on…yes you, their money, profit.

It has gone so horribly wrong somewhere.

Note: The MVMA has two staff, it seems to me: Assistant Director Marilyn Macleod and Associate Executive Director Dina Tedeschi. Their address is: 163 Lakeside Avenue, Marlborough, MA. This is a ground view of that address:

Two useful tags. Click either to see the articles: Toxic to cats | Dangers to cats

To the Bill

To the MVMA’s reasons to oppose it

Michael Avatar

Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association Opposes the Devocalization Bill to Declawing cats

Comments for
Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association Opposes the Devocalization Bill

Click here to add your own comments

May 01, 2010Patronize the 200 vets who supported this bill!
by: Kat Chopinski

More than 200 Massachusetts veterinarians took a compassionate and courageous stand by endorsing the bill banning devocalization of dogs and cats despite opposition from MVMA.

They’re the vets I’d bring my own pets to–I sure wouldn’t trust one who sanctions medically unnecessary surgery on a defenseless dog or cat!

BTW, every cat I’ve ever fostered or adopted had been declawed and then dumped. Likewise, nearly all the hundreds of devocalized dogs (and a few cats) in Massachusetts encountered by Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets–the unfunded, all-volunteer group that sponsored this bill–had been abandoned AFTER having their vocal cords cut.

Convenience surgeries don’t ensure animals a secure home. Responsible, humane ownership does.

MVMA should start working to promote the latter rather than fighting to protect the former. That would serve animals and the profession far better than pandering to profit-driven breeders and lazy or selfish pet owners.

Apr 26, 2010Well Said
by: Michael Elisa Black-Taylor, I love what you say. We need more fighting spirit.

Apr 25, 2010Blackball the vets
by: Elisa Black-Taylor I think a good way to stop it is to blackball the vets doing it. I know if I EVER took a pet to a vet and saw either a declawed cat or vocal cord removal and it was recently done, I would not only never go back there, I’d tell all of my friends about it too. And I have a VERY big mouth when it comes to protecting cats. Hit them where they live-in the wallet! People in other countries don’t realize how crazy things are here now concerning the government. Unemployment is out of control, we have a president who won’t keep his nose out of things that don’t concern us and yet unemployment funds are drying up. Yet he gives MILLIONS and MILLIONS to other countries while people here are losing everything. 

Mar 24, 2010ACTION NEEDED!!!
by: Susan The MVMA has mobilized with a smear campaign – ACTION NEEDED!!!

Mar 21, 2010Only as a last resort
by: Tracey Yes, same old same old; wish I had a pound for every time I heard that one! Roughly translated means its open to the vets interpretation and we all know what that means don’t we?Discount vouchers, bad advice, no advice etc

Vets we aren’t fooled. If you could be trusted to do what was right for the animal there would be no requirement for a ban.

The very phrase [only where medically necessary] states that it was previously being carried when it wasn’t medically necessary.

What more can I say except vets just can’t be trusted to do the right thing for the animal and they are again worried about a dent in their profits.


Mar 20, 2010come on Mass, pass HB 344!
by: Susan Just as the Councilmembers in California saw the truth about declawing, despite the lobbying of the CVMA, the Mass House of Reps saw the real deal about devocalizing and voted FOR the animal — not what the MVMA (& breeders) wanted! Please keep calling the Mass Senators and tell them to “Pass House Bill 344 AS WRITTEN” so it can be enforced to protect cats & dogs from having their throats & vocal cords slit! I loved how Rep. Coakley-Rivera’s speech to the House floor specifically addressed how this disgusting convenience surgery is not about the love of animals:”…(My dogs) are members of my family. They may not be search dogs who find people…or assistance dogs working with children. But they are special to me. (Devocalization) involves monetary profit, not love of animals. (It) is inhumane and must be stopped. Most people who devocalize their dogs don’t take the time and training. Little dogs have a tendency to yelp, it’s their only defense. I brought my friend who has sat here for the last 40 minutes and not said a word. He gets love and humane treatment from my family. Please accept this bill as written.” -Rep. Coakley-Rivera

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

1 thought on “Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association Opposes the Devocalization Bill”

  1. Great !!! Devoicing is just as bad as declawing. Would anyone have their kid’s vocal cords cut if they were being too loud? The heck they wouldn’t, and they’d be in prison for child abuse. That’s what both of these surgeries are for animals are—abuse–nothing more.


Leave a Comment

follow it link and logo