[GhostUser]

I'm just wondering why it is exactly it is considered inhumane? Do those involved with animal rights consider it inhumane only in certain circumstances or all of the time? Do they/you consider it sort of bad, a horrible thing, or somewhere in the middle?

I've never really bothered to delve into all of the other little issues, like this one apparently, that ARA's consider important. Your comments on this issue/topic would interest me. Thanks!

 

[HappyDaisy]

This is from Peta's site. Here's a link to the entire factsheet. I've quoted some of it below, too.

http://www.peta-online.org/mc/facts/fsc6.html

Quote:

Declawing Cats: Manicure or Mutilation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A cat's claws are used to capture prey, for climbing, and in self-defense. Claws are an integral part of a cat's life, but their use can also be a problem for cats' human cohabitants. Declawing, however, is a painful and permanently crippling procedure that should not be practiced. There are effective and humane alternatives to declawing that can reduce or eliminate clawing damage.

Why Do Cats Claw Objects?

Cats claw to maintain proper condition of the nails, for fun and exercise, and to mark territory visually as well as with scent.(1) They stretch by digging their claws into something and pulling back against their own clawhold. A cat's natural instinct to scratch serves both physical and psychological needs. Before domestication, cats satisfied these needs by clawing tree trunks. Domesticated cats can be trained to satisfy their desire to claw without damaging valuable property.

Understanding Declawing

Declawing involves 10 separate, painful amputations. It is a serious surgery, not just a manicure. The British Veterinary Associations calls declawing an "unnecessary mutilation."(2) Indeed, it is illegal in Germany(3) and other parts of Europe.(4)

Declawing a cat involves general anesthesia and amputation of the last joint of each toe, including the bones, not just the nail. Possible complications of this surgery include reaction to anesthetic,(5) hemorrhage, bone chips which prevent healing, recurrent infections and damage to the radial nerve, pain, and possible abnormal regrowth of the nails.(6) The nails may grow back inside the paw, causing pain but remaining invisible to the eye. Declawed cats need regular X-rays to monitor this problem. Declawing results in a gradual weakening of leg, shoulder, and back muscles, and, because of impaired balance, declawed cats have to relearn to walk much as would a person who lost his or her toes. Without claws, cats are virtually defenseless, and this often leads to neurosis and even skin and bladder problems.

Animal protection groups including the American Humane Association and the Humane Society of the United States, as well as many veterinarians, have spoken out against declawing. Many vets refuse to perform the surgery, calling the operation cruel, and in most cases, unnecessary. Veterinarian Florence Barton says, "I won't perform this operation. The cat is missing [his or her] most important means of defense and . . . feels very insecure."(7) In The Cat Care Question and Answer Book veterinarian Barry Bush concurs: "Veterinary removal of the claws (onychectomy) is a painful mutilation which cannot be recommended under any circumstances."(8) Dr. Louis J. Camuti, a practicing vet for more than 58 years sums up his objections this way: "I wouldn't declaw a cat if you paid me $1,000 per nail!"(9)

Without claws to mark their territory, even house-trained cats will often urinate and defecate outside the litter box in a desperate attempt to ward off intruders.(10)

There are several misconceptions about declawing. It does not make cats more "mellow." Declawed cats may be morose, reclusive, and withdrawn, or they may be irritable, aggressive, and unpredictable. Many people think declawing makes a cat safer around babies, but this is far from true, as the lack of claws turns many cats into biters. Declawed cats feel so insecure, lacking their first line of defense, that they tend to bite more often as a means of self-protection.(11)

People who have their cats declawed simply do not understand how important claws are to a cat and do not know how else to deal with the problem. With a little effort and commitment to your cat's welfare, you can eliminate the excuse to declaw your cat and make him or her a better companion as well.

 

[VealPrincess]

Personally, I don't agree with declawing. I think in most cases it is unnecessary. However, having lived with three declawed cats in the past, I can say that declawing doesn't seem to have any lasting effects on the cats welfare (imo.... as well as the opinion of many veterinarian's I have spoken to)

Our cats went outside.... they could climb trees normally and could defend themselves in scuffles. They are not left "virtually defenseless", as their natural defense mechanism is biting (I don't have a reference for this.... although it was told to me by the past president of the CVMA)

I'd say don't bring a kitten home until you are prepared to have at least a little bit of damage done to things. It just goes with the territory with many new and young animals.

As for the mental health of the cats I have known that are declawed.... they are no different from a cat who hasn't been declawed. Our cats still performed scenting behaviours by "scratching" furniture etc. That, of course, is my own experiences. I wouldn't declaw a cat of my own, but that is because I deem it as unnecessary, not really because I think it leaves any real lasting "mental scars". Maybe I'm wrong though. I should do a search for some journal articles....

 

[GhostUser]

I don't approve of declawing and my cats have theirs. I have, like FG, seen cats that have done just fine after being declawed. I found one a home after it had been abandoned and lived for several months in a remote part of one base where I was stationed.

 

[Michael]

I think if a person can't accept an animal the way it is then maybe they shouldn't have one. I suppose one could say the same about spaying & neutering but declawing is clearly beneficial only to the "owner" whereas spaying or neutering can be beneficial to the animal as well.

 

[LadyFaile]

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael

I think if a person can't accept an animal the way it is then maybe they shouldn't have one.

yes exactly! we want to get ferrets, when finances allow for it, well my boyfriend wants them mostly, i'm just going along with it cause the cat was sort of sprung on him without discussing it, so i'm not in a position to argue

and ferrets are cool. but we decided when we do get them, we will NOT be descenting them. we read up on it, and it seems removing the scent gland is not necessary, as the only time ferrets spray is when in heat, or when they feel threatened. we will have them spayed/neutered, so being in heat isn't an issue. i'm sure there will be a few incidences at first, as the cat will be curious and they'll probably be uneasy until they get used to each other, but i don't think it will be a lasting problem and if so we can keep them in seperate rooms, no big deal

but we read that removing the scent gland is more harmful than good, it can cause serious damage if done incorrectly and it's really much harder to do correctly than people think

 

[max]

The article states:

Quote:

With a little effort and commitment to your cat's welfare, you can eliminate the excuse to declaw your cat and make him or her a better companion as well.

I have to agree with the others that the cat should have it's claws, as does mine. It took some time and effort but I did finally teach old "stinky" not to claw on the furniture. The key word I find is EFFORT if your not going to take the time don't take the cat.

max

 

[GhostUser]

I work at a vet clinic and two out of the three veterinarians WILL NOT declaw cats- for moral reasons. It causes immense pain, and most often there are alternatives. The cat's are fine after about a month of tiptoeing around of course... but when they wake up and cry after the surgery, shaking their paws to get rid of the pain- it's very disturbing.

Beth

 

[zoebird]

i've noticed with the two "declawed" cats that i've known that they were just fine, very healthy, etc etc etc for the duration of their very long (for cats anyway) lives.

my sister's new cat had the tendon procedure.she is quite the rascal and very fit. of course, she's not very old though, about 2 years maybe.

both my sister and i were against the procedure because we felt it was unnecessary and both tiger (our old, now deceased, cat) and trilla (the new cat) would only scratch their posts anyway. But, my parents insisted in both cases. and in the first case, they didn't even tell us that tiger was being declawed. i was really upset that our opinions were not counted in the cat's welfare--at the very least heard.

I'm against the declawing procedure because it seems to be extreme and more detrimental than the tendon procedure. but, generally speaking, i don't think it should be done because it is unnecessary. and i'm not into 'unnecessary' procedures for anyone (like my MIL's historectomy for instance).

 

[soilman]

zoebird writes:

=================

i don't think it should be done because it is unnecessary. and i'm not into 'unnecessary' procedures for anyone (like my MIL's historectomy for instance).

==================

This statement seems to contradict your previous assertions that you are "into" various sorts of "body modification" which, by definition, are "unnecessary" procedures. While of course a nipple piercing is not as big a deal as cutting off the tips of one's fingers, it is still, undoubtedly, an unnecessary procedure.

 

[zoebird]

on the contrary, soilman, even beautification procedures can be "necessary" to some individuals and 'unnecessary" to others.

For instance, i had eye surgeries as well, some of which were not because of eye health, but cosmetics. I could see fine with crossed eyes, but non-crossed eyes look better and my parents wanted me to look good. Sure, it wasn't "necessary" from a health standpoint, but it was necessary from a cosmetic standpoint.

and, i consider my nipple piercings in much the same manner. I also consider many plastic surgeries to be in the same category.

But, there is also a difference between procedures that i do to myself and procedures that i suggest to others or would elect for others.

for me, the nipple piercing was ultimately necessary to manifest my self image. for others, this procedure may not be necessary, and i accept that. But then, i don't force others to have their nipples done, nor do i readily say that people "should" have it done if they are telling me that they're thinking of having it done. I'm candid about the procedure and how important it is to know yourself and whatyou want before hand. I see no reason to go through the procedure, or any like it, if it is not necessary for you to go through it.

As for cats, they do not have a voice, and the procedure is not necessary in order for cats and humans to coexist in an environment together. It is merely the human's desire, and not the cat's interest that comes into play. The cat does not have the need for the procedure nor the desire for the procedure as a manifestation of their inner self. The cat probably doesn't have the capability to think about it in this way.

 

[soilman]

Zoebird, I just don't comprehend your statement that nipple piercings, of largely normal nipples, might be "necessary" from a cosmetic standpoint. Nor do I understand your statement "the nipple piercing was ultimately necessary to manifest my self image."

You are saying that you imagined yourself as someone with pierced nipples, and in order to be happy, or comfortable, you just had to make yourself the way you imagined yourself, as opposed to accepting yourself the way you already were. I find it quite difficult to believe that you couldn't have been just as happy or just as comfortable, without piercing your nipples, as you would be subsequent to piercing your nipples. I just don't buy your explanation. Of course you have a perfect right to pierce your nipples if you wish, and I wouldn't dream of interfering. But I just don't see how I can believe your explanation.

 

[soilman]

Your explanation, zoebird, sounds to me like what lawyers call a legal fiction. For you non-lawyers out there: no one really believes it is true, but people agree to suspend their disbelief, in order to achieve certain ends.

For you non-lawyers out there: an example of a legal fiction is a corporation. Under the law, a corporation accounts for its income, expenses, assets, and liabilities (and pays taxes on its net income, filing only one tax return) just like a single individual, even though it consists of the time and effort of a number of people, and is not really a single individual. It literally means embodiment -- into one body, of the people-hours of a number of people. Under the law, we pretend it is an individual (for business purposes, and in civil lawsuits, for example, though not for criminal purposes) even though it consists of the efforts of a bunch of people. It is a fictional person.

Another example of a legal fiction is, I believe, an adopted child, which is viewed under the law, and treated under the law, exactly like a natural offspring, even though the law doesn't expect people to believe that the child is truly a natural offspring.

 

[soilman]

Your claim, zoebird, that a nipple-piercing is "necessary," remind of the claims of a spoiled child who claims that Tickle-me-Elmo is "necessary," or a Cabbage Patch Doll, is "necessary," or that Fruit Loops are "necessary" and Corn Pops just won't do.

 

[zoebird]

lol soilman. in a slippery slope argument, it would be true, but it simply isn't the same as greatly desiring corn pops over fruit loops or what not. Also, it isn'ta legal fiction, like a corporation although that's a good description of a legal fiction.

nor was it a matter of not accepting myself as i am, because "as i am" is this way and then changes to that way. But, consider the nipple piercing not unlike what scupltors say of their marble figures: it was already in the marble, i just brought it out. I feel that most elective cosmetic adjustments to one's body are like this. It is entirely natural to my body for it to be this way. In order for it to be this way, i had to go through a sort of procedure. That procedure was "necessary" in order for my body to be this way.

Yes, i accepted it the way it was. Then i decided that i'd like to "bring out what was already there" and did so. For many people, it is "not what is already there" and for them, the procedure is unnecessary, just as an extra chip out of the marble would have been for so many sculptures.

 

[majake]

If that was true about the artist seeing what is already in the marble and he/she just brought it out, one can reasonable assume that ALL artist would see the same thing in that particular chunk of marble. I have a hard time believing such a thing would happen. What they see is a vision that they have in their mind and focus it to fit within the guidlines of the marble.

 

[Vegankat]

My ex-bf's mom got her cat declawed. It was an indoor cat. One day, though, it got outside. It was attacked by a vicious animal, and could not defend itself. It died. Needlessly, if I do say so myself.

 

[GhostUser]

I have a cat thats declawed, he seems content, hes pretty old and hasnt had any problems. I don't think its much to ask from a cat to have it declawed, i mean you do provide for this animal, make sure its safe, keep him healthy feed, bathe him, not much to ask in return. So if declawing is wrong, so is neutering. That's unnessesary surgery. How do cutting out a cats ovulating oven help the cat any? Its just population control.

 

[soilman]

I think that both declawing, and spaying and neutering are unnecessary surgery, from the point of view of the cat. These interventions are necessary -- for people, in order maintain control over animals that they have chosedn to become their companions. People use these extreme measures of population control on cats, because people want to protect themselves from large number of cats which become a nuisance to people, not because these large numbers need to be protected from having the miserable lives of -- too many cats in too small a niche. The cat population will regulate itself, without human intervention. But the large numbers of cats that most areas will support will be very annoying to people. Saying such population control is good for the cat is a pretext for doing something selfishly good for people. People would have to avoid feeding cats, if their population weren't controlled with surgery -- and half-starved cats, though many of them would survive, would not be pleasant companion animals, and would not be a pleasant gang to have wandering the neighborhood. The purpose of cat population control is to enable people to have companion animals, without, at the same time, being overrun by them.. If people didn't want them as compainion animals, and didn't feed them, then the cats would control their own population, by their own methods. Eventually their population would shrink to a tiny percentage of the number there are today --- if any survive at all. Their population would be limited by the available number of prey animals, instead of by the huge amount food supplied to cats by people. We would no longer have 6 cats for every field mouse.. We would have 1 cat for every 100 field mice.

 

[GhostUser]

People had as you say compainains (Pets) sense near the begining of time, they didnt declaw, spay, nueter back than. I think the animal likes you cause your feeding it basically

It can be awild cat, but you feed it enough you could probably tame it. If they stopped controlling cat population cats wouldnt die off, they were wild before and they can learn to adapt again.