Devocalization

What Devocalization Is

Devocalization, also called ventriculocordectomy or debarking, is the surgical removal or ablation of a dog's vocal cords. The procedure eliminates or severely reduces the ability to bark. After devocalization, dogs can still open their mouths and attempt to vocalize, but produce only a hoarse rasp or whisper.

The stated purpose in laboratory settings is noise reduction. Beagles are vocal dogs. A building housing hundreds of beagles produces significant sound levels. Rather than address the conditions that cause distress barking, the industry has historically removed the dogs' ability to be heard.

The Ridglan Farms Procedure

The Ridglan Farms investigation revealed devocalization practices that the AVMA and veterinary ethicists have called indefensible:

• No anesthesia — dogs were given succinylcholine, a paralytic agent that immobilizes muscles but provides zero pain relief. The dogs were fully conscious and able to feel everything. They could not move, cry out, or resist.
• Non-veterinarians performed the surgery — facility workers including individuals identified as Hiltbrandt and Olson conducted the procedures. They were not licensed veterinarians.
• Volume — 30 to 40 dogs were devocalized per month at the facility.
• Technique — the vocal cords were accessed through the mouth and cut or cauterized. Without proper anesthesia and surgical training, the procedure carried elevated risk of hemorrhage, aspiration of blood, incomplete removal, and excessive tissue damage.

Regulatory Response

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) documented 311 violations at Ridglan Farms. The devocalization practices, along with improper cherry eye surgery, constituted a significant portion of these violations.

Despite the severity and volume of violations, Ridglan Farms continued operating. The penalties did not match the scale of the harm.

Veterinary and Ethical Position

• AVMA — formally discourages devocalization as a "convenience procedure" and states it should be performed only as a last resort, under general anesthesia, by a licensed veterinarian.
• Dr. Sherstin Rosenberg — veterinarian and expert witness who has reviewed laboratory devocalization practices — described the procedure as performed at Ridglan as "mutilation." Performing ventriculocordectomy using a paralytic agent and no anesthesia is, in her assessment, an act of cruelty regardless of the setting.
• Multiple U.S. states — have banned or restricted devocalization of dogs (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others), though exemptions for research facilities often apply.

Historical Context

Devocalization of laboratory beagles is not a relic of the distant past, nor was Ridglan an outlier.

In the 1960s and 1970s, beagles used in tobacco inhalation studies were routinely devocalized. The stated reason was that barking interfered with the forced-smoking apparatus and disrupted the laboratory environment. Photographs of devocalized beagles with tubes inserted into their tracheas became iconic images of the anti-vivisection movement.

The practice continued in breeding facilities for decades afterward. Facilities housing hundreds of beagles found it cheaper and easier to devocalize than to invest in soundproofing, enrichment, or housing modifications that might reduce stress-related vocalization.

Alternatives

Alternatives to devocalization exist and are used by facilities that choose to implement them:

• Soundproofing and facility design — acoustic panels, separated housing areas, and sound-dampening kennel construction reduce noise without modifying the animals.
• Environmental enrichment — dogs that are less stressed bark less. Social housing, outdoor access, toys, and varied routines reduce vocalization driven by boredom and distress.
• Behavioral conditioning — positive reinforcement protocols can reduce excessive barking, though they require trained staff and time.
• Breed selection — some facilities have experimented with selecting for quieter temperaments within breeding colonies, though this raises its own ethical questions about breeding animals to tolerate confinement.

Why It Matters

Devocalization is not medically necessary. It does not benefit the animal. It is performed entirely for the convenience of the humans operating the facility. When performed without anesthesia, by unqualified individuals, on dozens of animals per month, it crosses from ethically questionable to straightforwardly cruel.

The practice also has a symbolic dimension. Removing a dog's voice is, literally, silencing it. The dogs in these facilities cannot bark, cannot howl, cannot alert to their own distress. Matthew Reich and Leah Staley, whose undercover work exposed Ridglan's practices, gave these dogs a voice through a different means.

Sources

1. 1.DATCP Inspection Records, 2018-2021. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection documentation of 311 violations at Ridglan Farms, including devocalization and cherry eye surgery procedures.
2. 2.AVMA Policy on Devocalization, 2020. American Veterinary Medical Association position discouraging canine devocalization as a convenience procedure.
3. 3.Ridglan Farms Investigation, 2021. Undercover documentation of facility practices including devocalization methodology, personnel, and frequency.