The one good thing that's spreading here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/18/national/main5695478.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.1
yes this is a good thing for Cats, i'm pretty sure its illegal in the UK but i could be wrong.
If its not it should be
I hate declawing. I wish that more owners were educated to the fact that it is an amputation at the joint, not like a simple nail trim.
I hate declawing so much that I was banned from being surgical tech for declaws when I worked at the vet clinic, because something would go wrong every time, so our vet said I was bringing "bad juju" 
We have a foster in our house right now who is declawed. He is 7 years old, and still will stop walking occasionally to shake, and bite at his paws. It breaks my heart.
All of that said, I also think that declawed is better than dead. Until we are saving 100% of cats in shelters, this law is only hurting.
I hope they do not see an increase in shelter relinquishments and killing because of this.
-Nicole
My only concern is how the laws are worded. Some make it illegal to possess a declawed cat which is a huge problem for rescues trying to rehome animals being given up by their irresponsible owners.
My only concern is how the laws are worded. Some make it illegal to possess a declawed cat which is a huge problem for rescues trying to rehome animals being given up by their irresponsible owners.
Where did you see that?
On the Bengal Rescue list I am on, one of laws proposed in So Cal was worded in such a way that owners of declawed animals could be fined. I think the rationale was to prevent owners from having the procedure done in neighboring areas that did not have the ban but it would also negatively impact rescue. Firstly because people in that area would be more likely to give up their cats and secondly by making it impossible to place already declawed rescues in that area.
On the Bengal Rescue list I am on, one of laws proposed in So Cal was worded in such a way that owners of declawed animals could be fined. I think the rationale was to prevent owners from having the procedure done in neighboring areas that did not have the ban but it would also negatively impact rescue. Firstly because people in that area would be more likely to give up their cats and secondly by making it impossible to place already declawed rescues in that area.
Did that proposal get shot down?
I am not sure
Although I don't agree with yet another government interference in people's lives, I also do not agree with declawing cats.
None of mine have been declawed, yet I did not have torn up furniture or carpeting. My Sumi is quite the middle-aged lady, indoor only, but has never torn up anything in the house. (She lives with my ex now.) I supplied her with a scratching post and ceiling height kitty tree. She uses them religiously. It didn't take much to teach her, either. Also, declawed cats can do as much damage to a house as those with claws.
My theory was that if she ever did escape the house I wanted her to be able to defend herself or climb to escape danger. I lived in the coastal woods in Oregon: Coyotes, bears, cougar, raccoons, etc.
In my opinion, declawing is barbaric, but when is the government going to leave people alone?
I had a declawed cat that I took in that a neighbor moved and left. It spent most of the time at my house even when she lived here. He was a great cat and man was he tough. He stayed outside during the day and I saw him fend for himself and he could literally smack a cat in a fight so fast that they'd always ran off. The neighbor had some dumb name for him. I called him Prince.
Gorgeous cat, Dan…love the slanted, almond shaped eyes. My Sumi is a miniature version of the stereotypical Halloween cat...Stark black with big, round yellow eyes. I don't have any pics of her with me. I'll see if John can email me some.
In my opinion, declawing is barbaric, but when is the government going to leave people alone?
I totally agree with you on both subjects, but, if a person wants to declaw, it should be their business. I don't like gummit rules and ordinances regarding what I do with my property or life - .
I cannot believe you just made that statement. So in your view its ok to surgically alter an animal just so it fits in with your life(which begs the question why have an animal in the first place - just get a toy)? Debarked, declawed -what next, cut their legs shorter so you dont have to exercise them too much? And you think you have the right to do it? :mad:
I cannot believe you just made that statement. So in your view its ok to surgically alter an animal just so it fits in with your life(which begs the question why have an animal in the first place - just get a toy)? Debarked, declawed -what next, cut their legs shorter so you dont have to exercise them too much? And you think you have the right to do it? :mad:
+1.. Animals have rights too.. If an owner doesn't protect them, the law should.
I'm not against animal rights…to a point. At some juncture, though, people in elected office need to butt out of the minutia of individuals' lives. This discussion rolls back to the issue of spay/neuter.
I'll say it again...declawing a cat is a barbaric practice that I don't agree with. I will debate until I'm blue in the face with someone considering this mutilation. I think it needs to stop with the veterinarians. Vets need to educate the pet owners about this and maybe even take a stand on it.
But where do we stop writing laws? Will sheep herders still be allowed to dock tails and castrate lambs by use of a hunting knife and their teeth? Will owners of dogs be allowed to remove dew claws, dock tails and crop ears, all done purely for cosmetic reasons? Where does it stop? It's the government intrusion I disagree with.
I agree with Vicki people do all kinds of things …dock tails, castrate, debark, crop ears, cutting dew claws, declawing.
Most of these things I do not agree with, some I do. Although if a person wants to declaw it should be their business. I'm very pro choice and open minded person.
When I was in high school a friend of mine had two cats both declawed. The reason behind it. His family had a large house with a nice size back yard and they did not want the cats climbing up the fence and tree's just to escape from the yard, get hit by a car, lost, wander the neighborhood or get killed by a wild animal. They would spend the day in the yard and sleep indoors at night. These cats were loved and healthy.
I am a very open minded person and do not like the "nanny state" that we find ourselves living in - but everyone must agree there are limits. So you say that a practice is barbaric, but if someone "wants" to do it, they can?
Michael Vick - carried out practices which were barbaric (and beyond) which were against the law, but presumably he "wanted" to do it - does that mean we should all be ok with that?
There is a huge difference between performing a surgical procedure under anesthetic and forcing dogs to fight each other, often to the death.
I have said before…I think declawing is barbaric. If you want a pet without claws, don't get a cat. That said, however, making it a crime to possess a declawed cat hits the wrong end of the chain. There are many procedures that are banned. But why hit the individual who owns the animal?
With banned human procedures, it is the doctors who get in trouble. Reference Dr. Kevorkian. Patients wanted a "procedure," he supplied it and he got into trouble. I can think of several more human procedures that are rightfully banned, but no need to get gross here.
Once again, though, where does it all stop? How is the law written? Does it, in fact, ban the removal of claws from any animal? A lot of us would be in trouble with that one…considering it is almost universal practice for dog breeders to remove dewclaws, which is an unnecessary amputation done without anesthetic and purely for cosmetics.
Tails are docked, again, without anesthetic, on days-old pups. Why? The ACD that lived with me had his tail intact. He used it for counterbalance when he was running. And it was the most endearing thing for him to sit looking up at me with just the end of his tail wagging on the floor.
I don't agree with mutilating animals. But I also don't agree with government interference in every aspect of individuals' lives. It has to stop somewhere.
I think in the Uk it is illegal now to dock Dogs tails, crop their ears, de claw Cats. I dont think vets are too keen to remove dew claws anymore either.I dont think much of the government but I personaly think these particular laws are good as they protect the animal.
I think in the Uk it is illegal now to dock Dogs tails, crop their ears, de claw Cats. I dont think vets are too keen to remove dew claws anymore either.I dont think much of the government but I personaly think these particular laws are good as they protect the animal.
In the Netherlands it's also not allowed to dock tails, crop ears and remove dew claws from young pups without any medical reason. I believe you can't even show your docked/cropped dog if you get it from the US or anywhere else where it is allowed.
And declawing cats?!? I had never even heard of that! And our cats also walk loose outside.. Fight etc… To me it feels the same as debarking a dog, which is also too crazy for words.. If you can't handle a cats' nails.. Don't get a cat... (although as a vet it would probably be nice to know the cat has lost 4 out of his 5 weapons ;))
Mind you i may commit murder of a Cat tonight. For the last two nights we have had a Tom Cat sneaking in our Cat door and upsetting our Cats. He has upset me as well, it is a horrible way to be woken up to hear Cats screaming at the top of their voices. The worrying thing is i think its the same cat that caused Jerrys facial wound. We may seal the cat door tonight although it will upset our two as they like to come and go.
