I am so FURIOUS over declawing right now!!!!

[commonoddity042]

Originally Posted by MyBabies

This type of thread has gone around and around. MOST people are dead against declawing BUT if a cat has a chance to have a nice loving home DECLAWED or stay in a shelter or be pts WITH claws it is better to have it declawed.

PROBLEM is the VETS! MOSTS of them do it for the money! My neighbor AND the Nutro Max Rep both have had their cats declawed as the Vet told them it was not a bad thing to do and actually reccomended it!

Nutro Max lady tried to tell me they no longer cut off part of the toe but do it with a lazor instead and she REFUSED to listen to me or the rescue lady. She thought WE were crazy!

So you see it is the VETS who are causing this misery - for MONEY!

"The vets" are not all pro-declawing.

I know quite a few who are dead against it, but have seen so many botched declaws come to them for repair that they've no choice but to do them (to save "the cats" from the pain of being declawed wrong, having painful complications, and needing to have surgery all over again to repair the problems).

They have anti-declaw pamphlets in their offices and will discuss alternatives at length with the owners (usually convincing them to swith to Softpaws, and not, not for the money. For the cat's well-being.) as opposed to simply booking them.

Do you take your cats to a vet? You seem to be heavily against all of them.

 

[zissou'smom]

I think nearly everyone would be against declawing in most cases if they knew what it was. Education does work much better than anger. My new landlord used to require declawing until she found out what it was, now we just sign a paper that says if we do not declaw we are responsible for any damage done by scratching (gladly!). My mom didn't know it was so bad but I explained it and she was horrified that her mom had done it to her childhood cats. I honestly never know how bad it was before, if someone said they had a cat I'd ask if it was declawed (I never had pets as a kid). But then my sister explained to me what it was and I knew never to get it done.

Then again, you'll run across some idiots of all kinds. A sort-of friend of mine works in a vet office and claims that declawing is okay because "Do you need to have long fingernails?" I tried explaining it to her numerous times but of course she knows better, right? So I gave up and excused myself to calm down. Gettin mad won't change her opinion, although I asked her why her cats weren't declawed then and she had no real answer for that...

 

[white cat lover]

One vet around here will NOT do all 4, she will do the front paws only. Another vet will do anything, so long as he gets paid. The third vet will do 2 or 4 paws, but does tell people that it is difficult to recover from & can cause behavioral problems. However, none of the vets openly oppose declawing...although they do not like it, many of those cats would end up at the shelter if they weren't declawed...or worse, dead.

 

[whisky'sdad]

Although I have been educated on the declawing, if it is made illegal, how many cats will you see die from people doing it themselves, since you wouldn't be able to find anyone to do it? There will always be stupid people in this world and any amount of laws will not change that.

 

[zissou'smom]

I honestly think one of the first places to start the campaign is with landlords who require cats to be declawed. This is a major reason that people have them declawed. I know a few people who did not want to declaw their cats but the landlord required it. I know someone else who bought a house so they wouldn't have to rent and thus declaw their cats, but hardly anyone has the money to do that that I know.

When Zissou got spayed at the rescue/shelter/clinic here, they asked if she wanted declawed. I said no, and they were visibly relieved, and I said I was suprised they even do it. She explained that they only do it because so many people's landlords requires that the cats are declawed, and they would rather the cats have a home than not. They do give a little sheet explaining what it is to everyone, but apparently many people get very upset because they don't really have a choice aside from surrendering their pets. That is so terrible to me, and of course I'd never live somewhere that required it, but many places do because they don't know how bad it is, and they are thinking more about the fact that declawed cats do less damage to apartments (although obviously not thinking about potential litterbox problems).

 

[elbvc211]

Originally Posted by lunasmom

Please understand that I am against declawing too...Whitey and Luna both have all four claws. I also agree that it should be illegal in the US..

However, I don't consider it something to furiously angry over...its more a knowledge that we have that we need to educate other people. IMO its best to educate people on what they did to their cats and make them feel guilty the rest of the cats lives rather than yell and scream about it.

This is very true - Although it does make me mad when vets recommend it. I almost had my own kitten declawed, simply because I had no clue how bad it was.

The vet I first took her too made it seem like a "routine procedure".

He said I should have it done while she is young and do it at the same time as her spay, and she'll never even notice. (I haven't gone back to that vet because I can't stand the guy, not just because of the declawing discussion -- but other things as well)

Fortunately for my sweet kitty's sake, I ran across this forum and read a forum post about why people shouldn't declaw - and I was shocked and completely disgusted!

I'll never, ever get her declawed now. I wouldn't have thought twice about declawing after the way the vet described it to me, he made it seem more like a manicure than an amputation...

People need to be informed about what it really is - because vets are either trying to convince people to do it so they can make money, or just aren't trying to make them stop for whatever reason, maybe they're too lazy or maybe they don't want to cause controversy - who knows.

But getting mad at people who have already declawed their cat isn't likely to help - it will just make them defensive and they will look for a reason to justify their actions just to get you off their back.

 

[starryeyedtiger]

I wish declawing cats as well as debarking dogs was illegal in the US. All of my kitties have their claws except for Jasmine- but i rescued her after she had been declawed. I think it is a cruel and unnecessary surgery. Especially when there are other options like softpaws, pheramones, and scratching posts. Cats have nails, and it is part of their instinct to sharpen and use them, if a person doesn't want an animal with nails- then a cat is not the right pet for them. There is only one circumstance in which i think declawing is ok and that is when a cat ferociously attacks someone, and the only other option would be euthanazia. I say this because when my niece Taylor was 3, my sister's maine coon Alfie fisciously attacked her for no reason. Taylor was sitting in the floor reading, nowhere near the kitty. It wasn't spooked or anything- he just attacked. Taylor had to be taken to the emergency room and recieved multiple stitches. My sister and her family opted to have him declawed instead of euthanized. He was a rescued kitty from an animal shelter...they rescued him as an adult, so they're not sure if he had been abused in the past. They had tried soft paws, to no avail...he figured out how to get them off and still attacked family members. They also had done their research before adopting him- studied body language and temperment issues. They decided since they had adopted the kitty, under no circumstances would they have it euthanized (unless it was terminally ill) ....so in order to keep alfie from hurting their children again, they had him declawed. He recovered well, and didn't use his teeth instead of his claws like some declawed kitties do. After that they didn't have any more attack incidents with him. Taylor healed up, and is now an avid animal lover- she loves kitties and is very good around them as are her little brothers. So while i don't agree with declawing, in a rare and horrible circumstance, i think it is necessary sometimes to avoid euthanazia.

 

[commonoddity042]

Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom

I honestly think one of the first places to start the campaign is with landlords who require cats to be declawed. This is a major reason that people have them declawed. I know a few people who did not want to declaw their cats but the landlord required it. I know someone else who bought a house so they wouldn't have to rent and thus declaw their cats, but hardly anyone has the money to do that that I know.

When Zissou got spayed at the rescue/shelter/clinic here, they asked if she wanted declawed. I said no, and they were visibly relieved, and I said I was suprised they even do it. She explained that they only do it because so many people's landlords requires that the cats are declawed, and they would rather the cats have a home than not. They do give a little sheet explaining what it is to everyone, but apparently many people get very upset because they don't really have a choice aside from surrendering their pets. That is so terrible to me, and of course I'd never live somewhere that required it, but many places do because they don't know how bad it is, and they are thinking more about the fact that declawed cats do less damage to apartments (although obviously not thinking about potential litterbox problems).

I forgot to mention this earlier (and was just about to add it.) I completely agree that landlords who force people to choose between their pet's paws and their apartments need to be educated on what exactly they're asking of people.

 

[elbvc211]

Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom

I honestly think one of the first places to start the campaign is with landlords who require cats to be declawed.

I don't see why landlords require it. Cats are much more likely to be scratching the owners furniture than the walls of the landlord's house....

Besides, don't pet owners have to pay more money than other renters anyway?

The whole point of the extra rent money is just in case they do have to replace or repair something in the home. There's no reason for extra rent money and rules about cats claws.

 

[elbvc211]

Originally Posted by StarryEyedTiGeR

So while i don't agree with declawing, in a rare and horrible circumstance, i think it is necessary sometimes to avoid euthanazia.

Yeah, even in countries where declawing is illegal - they do make rare exceptions where the only other option is euthanizing. They just don't allow people to declaw their cats simply because it's convenient.

 

[zissou'smom]

Well, my current landlord charges 25$ extra per cat a month but has no declaw rule because the previous owners were cat nuts and that 25$ is actually for the good of the cats. Since these buildings are almost entirely college students, and thus, people who move often, many people abandoned their cats. The extra rent was introduced mostly so such people wouldn't get them. The former owner actually did TNR with a colony that lived here, and when they sold it they found someone who also liked cats and didn't require them to be declawed.
My next landlord is a cat owner also, but hers is declawed and she used to require it as well. She knows alot about cats, she does require them to be fixed and when I said Z had been done at 5 months, she responded "like they're supposed to". I read over the lease and came back and asked her about the declaw policy, and she said she no longer requires it and is sorry she had it done after finding out what it really is. She just makes you sign something saying that you will pay for any damages caused by the pet. However, she says that as a landlord she would like to require declawing for the sake of the property, but as a person she just can't do it. I can totally understand how cats can damage an apartment, moreso if they have claws (unless they get litterbox probs) but not everyone knows how to train a cat and will just let them scratch at carpet and walls and linoleum. But they just need to learn that comes with allowing cats.

Alot of the time, the extra money goes towards microbial deep-cleaning after you move out. I agree, they are getting extra rent sometimes for nothing, but I also believe having pets on the premises may raise their insurance in some areas. Also, it is kind of a risk-- I won't live in a building that allows dogs, some people won't live in one that allows cats, etc.

 

[wookie130]

Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom

I honestly think one of the first places to start the campaign is with landlords who require cats to be declawed. This is a major reason that people have them declawed. I know a few people who did not want to declaw their cats but the landlord required it. I know someone else who bought a house so they wouldn't have to rent and thus declaw their cats, but hardly anyone has the money to do that that I know.

When Zissou got spayed at the rescue/shelter/clinic here, they asked if she wanted declawed. I said no, and they were visibly relieved, and I said I was suprised they even do it. She explained that they only do it because so many people's landlords requires that the cats are declawed, and they would rather the cats have a home than not. They do give a little sheet explaining what it is to everyone, but apparently many people get very upset because they don't really have a choice aside from surrendering their pets. That is so terrible to me, and of course I'd never live somewhere that required it, but many places do because they don't know how bad it is, and they are thinking more about the fact that declawed cats do less damage to apartments (although obviously not thinking about potential litterbox problems).

Boy, am I gonna get nailed to a tree for this...but Zissou, your comments about landlords rang very true for me. I was a renter when I first brought Fergus home...I had full permission from my landlord to have a cat in my apartment. Fergus was a badly abused stray, and was very neurotic and did have some behavioral issues in the beginning that I worked on EXTENSIVELY to correct. The most troublesome issue he had was removing ENTIRE sheets of wallpaper from my apartment walls. He would shred the paper, chew it, and move to the next strip. I actually brought Ripley (my female) home to him as a distraction, which worked a bit, but after a while, he proceeded to systematically remove more wallpaper. Had I been a homeowner at the time, it would not have been a major problem...I would have just removed the wallpaper and painted. Well, needless to say, my landlord was LIVID. I offered to hire contractors in the apartment to remove the wallpaper and paint, but he insisted that the walls needed to have paper as they were in horrible condition underneath. I trimmed Fergus's paws weekly, provided scratching posts, used various noisemakers, made trips to the vet, used Softpaws (which worked at first, until he learned how to pull them off), used a spray bottle, flower essences, sticky contact paper on the wallpaper (which he pulled down and chewed as well)...nothing worked. It was an absolute fixation for Fergus to tear the wallpaper down. After my landlord came to assess the damage, he gave me the dreaded ultimatum...get the cat declawed, or the cat needs to go. Now, I am a very informed cat owner. I know the evils of declawing, and strongly disagree with the practice, and fully know that it is inhumane. But, I had to choose between the lesser of two evils...do I take my beloved cat to have his toes amputated, or do I surrender him to a shelter or to another owner (which would be at least his third home before the age of two years old) where his future is completely uncertain...I decided that it was better to declaw him than to rip him away from the only human he has ever been able to bond with...it was a very painful and difficult decision, but in my heart, I know I did what I had to do. Moving was not an option at that time. Fortunately, 3 years later, he is fine, active, great litter habits, and can run and jump like any other cat...but I basically went out on a limb and took the chance. I consider my situation very lucky...I was fully aware of the implications declawing Fergus could have. I am truly thankful it was a good outcome, and that he could remain with me.

I am now a homeowner, and know that I would never declaw another animal for the rest of my life. It is brutal, and cruel. But, being on the other side of the fence, I know that it was what kept Fergus from having to adjust to a new home, euthanization, or a life in a shelter, which to me, is the greater evil.

Note that I am NOT condoning declawing!!!!!!!!!!!! This is something that should never be done, period. All I am saying, is that I was in very tough situation, and took a chance, albeit an awful one.

 

[elbvc211]

Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom

Well, my current landlord charges 25$ extra per cat a month but has no declaw rule because the previous owners were cat nuts and that 25$ is actually for the good of the cats. Since these buildings are almost entirely college students, and thus, people who move often, many people abandoned their cats. The extra rent was introduced mostly so such people wouldn't get them. The former owner actually did TNR with a colony that lived here, and when they sold it they found someone who also liked cats and didn't require them to be declawed.
My next landlord is a cat owner also, but hers is declawed and she used to require it as well. She knows alot about cats, she does require them to be fixed and when I said Z had been done at 5 months, she responded "like they're supposed to". I read over the lease and came back and asked her about the declaw policy, and she said she no longer requires it and is sorry she had it done after finding out what it really is. She just makes you sign something saying that you will pay for any damages caused by the pet. However, she says that as a landlord she would like to require declawing for the sake of the property, but as a person she just can't do it. I can totally understand how cats can damage an apartment, moreso if they have claws (unless they get litterbox probs) but not everyone knows how to train a cat and will just let them scratch at carpet and walls and linoleum. But they just need to learn that comes with allowing cats.

Alot of the time, the extra money goes towards microbial deep-cleaning after you move out. I agree, they are getting extra rent sometimes for nothing, but I also believe having pets on the premises may raise their insurance in some areas. Also, it is kind of a risk-- I won't live in a building that allows dogs, some people won't live in one that allows cats, etc.

That's true I guess. I can see how the insurance could go up because there are some dog owners who are just as ignorant as some cat owners, and they let their untrained dogs run around and bite people - and their untrained, unfixed cats poo and spray all over other people's balconies and mate with other unfixed cats....

Too bad there isn't some kind of "are you a responsible pet owner" personality test that would keep irresponsible pet owners from being able to rent certain apartments and let responsible ones move in without outrageous fees. (Other than paying for cleaning up)

I think the idea of paying for whatever you damage is a good idea. That way only the pet owners whose pets cause damage have to pay.

This is obviously reasonable, if you had your own home and it was ruined by a pet, you'd have to pay for the damage. Even well behaved pets cause damage sometimes. That's just life as a pet owner.

 

[commonoddity042]

Originally Posted by elbvc211

That's true I guess. I can see how the insurance could go up because there are some dog owners who are just as ignorant as some cat owners, and they let their untrained dogs run around and bite people - and their untrained, unfixed cats poo and spray all over other people's balconies and mate with other unfixed cats....

Too bad there isn't some kind of "are you a responsible pet owner" personality test that would keep irresponsible pet owners from being able to rent certain apartments and let responsible ones move in without outrageous fees. (Other than paying for cleaning up)

I think the idea of paying for whatever you damage is a good idea. That way only the pet owners whose pets cause damage have to pay.

That would be great, but as with every other group, the mistakes of a few members of a group tends to ruin it for all.

 

[zissou'smom]

In most apartments you cannot let your cats outside, so it's mostly damage to your own apartment. I don't understand why it's any different than if you bust a hole in the wall or something, everyone doesn't have to pay an extra amount because of having fists. It's just that some landlords look at cats as an extra liability, which, well they kind of are. One that we are all willing to accept, but of course living with an animal means that. Zissou has commandeered some of my stuff-- including the only new shoes I'd been able to afford in years, that I had only worn twice, are now ruined as a chewy scratch toy. I didn't even really get too mad, and not at her but at the fact my shoes were ruined. If Zissou destroys the carpet, I will pay for new carpet, etc etc.

Wookie, that must have been absolutely heartbreaking to not be able to move. I'm glad your straybaby beat the odds and is perfectly happy toeless. I would have cried and cried if I had to do that. Luckily I would have been able to put mine with a family member til I could move, but I know you couldn't have had any other option. How sad.

 

[starryeyedtiger]

Originally Posted by elbvc211

Yeah, even in countries where declawing is illegal - they do make rare exceptions where the only other option is euthanizing. They just don't allow people to declaw their cats simply because it's convenient.

Yeah i agree with you. I think declawing should be illegal....but there should always be an exception for extreme circumstances such as where the cat will be euthanized for attacking people if not declawed. Such as what happened to my niece when she was little.

 

[elbvc211]

Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom

In most apartments you cannot let your cats outside

Oh, that's probably a good thing. I didn't know, cause I've never lived in an apartment. But I've heard horror stories from people who have lived in apartments and had to deal with all sorts of issues with their neighbors pets.

I also have a friend who lives in a condo and has to deal with her neighbors cat always being on her balcony - which she doesn't mind, cause she likes the cat and it doesn't cause problems. The only time it's really an issue is when the cat tries to come inside!

But in a condo there aren't usually rules about pets because you own them.

 

[arlyn]

Originally Posted by elbvc211

But in a condo there aren't usually rules about pets because you own them.

Oh yes there are!

Our pets are not allowed to roam without close supervision, this goes for dogs an cats.

I love cats (obviously!), but I certainly don't want them pooping in my flowerbeds.

As for declaws, they are barbaric, and they should be illegal, along with debarking, ear cropping, and tail docking not associated with injury.

For those that do not know, 4 of our cats are declawed, 1 is a 4 paw (but hers was precautionary as they thought her blind, I don't agree with it, but I do understand the rescuer's reasons).

 

[urbantigers]

I think declawing should only ever be done for health reasons. If a kitty is attacking people and behaviour modification hasn't worked then maybe the cat should be put to sleep. Although it seems a drastic solution (and I'm not advocating putting cats to sleep for behaviour problems right left and centre) I don't think that declawing - or any other procedure that's generally unacceptable - can be defended by saying it's better than being put to sleep. From a cat's point of view, being put painlessly to sleep is probably better than undergoing a painful operation and being unable to indulge in part of it's natural behaviour forever afterwards.

 

[zissou'smom]

I think people should have to watch an educational video including a videotaped declaw procedure and go through counseling before they are allowed to have a declaw. Why? Because a) many people wouldn't want to go through the hassle and b) most people who watched it wouldn't go through with it. This would be similar to what many states are doing concerning one other very controversial topic. It would work well, because so many people don't want it outlawed, but it would be easier to pass. You know, a step in the right direction.

Cats are not better off dead than declawed. They are better off wholly-footed than declawed. But people who have had to have foot/leg/hand/finger amputations would disagree that they're better off dead, at least the two I know would. Keep in mind the number of board members who have cats who were previously declawed, whose cats manage to enjoy their life every day, albeit perhaps missing their scratching. Maybe in countries where you never see a declawed cat it is easy to imagine that it is worse than it is... it is terrible, but it's not that terrible.