I think it is one thing for the RSPCA to remove the dogs who have been debarked...it is a completely different kettle of fish when they took the dogs that have not been debarked. If this was purely and simply because of the debarking issues...then it doesn't make any sense they took the other dogs.
None of us know the full story as of yet. Maybe there were other reasons for the RSPCA to seize the dogs...who knows?!? I don't think it is fair to speculate in this matter. I didn't read the whole thread (it was really long)...how many dogs have been debarked out of how many dogs this breeder/exhibitor owned? I don't know if Tibbies are notorious for barking, since I don't know the breed.
I don't believe in debarking a dog...but if it came to a choice between PTS and debarking...then the issue gets serious. There is a difference between "annoying barking" and a matter of life and death IMO!
I have never had a "barker", so I don't know. My dogs bark of course...when they see a possum or are playing.
Was the debarking done out of convenience? Was it done because they WERE fair dinkum barkers? Was it done because breeder hadn't put in the time to train and control the barking?
Should every avenue have been exhausted before debarking...for sure and perhaps it was! I think the arguement that it is "cruel" might be a bit thin in my opinion. We don't blink having our dogs desexed...removing their reproductive organs, because that has become the norm here in Australia and convenient for us humans! Removing the reproductive organs from humans have huge repercussions...how would that be any different for a dog? How many people think that doing this to dogs is "cruel" too?
People say...debarking diminished the dog's way of communicating. A dog communicate with NOSE first....then EYES....THEN ears! You won't see many dogs running up to a stranger dog and just start barking unless they are seriously unbalanced. They smell first....read body language...and then hear vocalisation. When we desex...we SERIOUSLY alter the dog's body smell and personality...so why is that not "cruel" in our eyes?!? For sure...desexing stops a lot of unwanted litters, but that is for a different discussion.
We get hind dew claws (thumb on back legs) snipped off without anaesthetics on tiny puppies...how is that not cruel? The definition of cruelty is to inflict intentional harm or pain! Tail docking used to be the norm (still legal in WA)...we didn't see that as cruel until the laws were put in place. Every Rottweiler we saw had a docked tail, but did we even think for one second that the tail had been snipped off without anaesthetics at 2-4 days? The arguement was...dogs need their tail to communicate and it is cruel! EVERY single Rottweiler...Doberman...Pointer...Weimeraner etc etc had docked tails...it was done for years and years!!! All of a sudden it becomes a "cruel" thing to do! That is the same as saying EVERY dog with a docked tail wasn't capable of communicating with other dogs...there must have been A LOT OF unbalanced dogs for many MANY years who suffered detrimental lasting effects from having their tails snipped at 2 days!!!
I have NEVER met a dog that has been debarked (or don't think I have), so I can't say that I think it is cruel. Cruelty would be if the dog suffers...do they suffer from having had this done...I don't know! They can still smell (first port of communication)...they can still see (second port of communication) and they CAN still vocalise (third port of communication).
In my opinion...if it was a matter of the choice between having my dog put down or debarking it due to being a "nuisance dog"...I would choose debarking at any time. If it was a matter of doing it for convenience...no I wouldn't!