If I were to ask the next 50 clients who walk in my door what they thought of 'altering' (trying not to use 'leading' language) the vocal cords to 'soften' a dog's bark, I would guess with reasonable confidence that 48 would be appalled at the idea. And I have a feeling that a lot of members of this forum feel the same way.
If I went to a country that had no tradition of infant circumcision, and asked 50 people on the street there what whey thought of "altering" (trying not to use leading language) a newborn's ***** to make it more aesthetically appealing, I would guess with reasonable confidence that 48 out of 50 would be appalled.
But in the US, where circumcision is routinely practiced, the vast majority of us don't have a problem with it. Yes, there are groups that protest it, and some parents choose not to have it done, but I think we can generally agree that, when done in a hospital by a doctor and with local anesthesia, circumcision is accepted. (It's also quite legal for it to be done in the parents' home, by a trained layman, with no anesthesia at all.) It forever alters an important function, but there are some benefits, and in the long run, life goes on. (Incidentally, like tail docking in dogs, it's a much more unpleasant procedure when done on an adult that when done at three days old - heck, this metaphor gets better and better!)
At any rate, what I'm trying to say is that I think a lot of the anti-debarking sentiment has to do with cultural exposure. It
sounds like an awful procedure. The general public imagines our dogs languishing in tiny cages, unloved. They don't meet debarked dogs, and they don't see just how entirely
normal their lives and behavior are. I think that if more people could see how happy and healthy and ordinary a debarked Sheltie's life is, more people would support owners' rights to seek the surgery.
. This subject has come up several before, and the discussions are always great. 
