Adopter wants to declaw - should I deny or approve?

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

Cats CAN be declawed without cutting the pad in half. That's what I saw recently with a laser. Yeah, it's about a $300 procedure but it doesn't damage toes.

Click to expand...

ALL de-claws are done the same way. None of them involve cutting the PAD in half. Even with the old-school 80s de-claws I've never seen a cat lose its pads. The first bone of the toe is removed....it's the only way to do it so the claw doesn't grow back. I'd call that "damage". The only difference with laser de-claw is that it's done with a laser so there's less chance of excessive bleeding, but that's it.

I don't believe de-clawing saves cats' lives (if you look at that study done by the AVMA, it suggests that comparatively MORE de-clawed cats are surrendered to shelters), so that argument doesn't do much for me.

We have 2 declawed cats at the shelter vs about 40 that are not. I have been there a year now and generally people who shell out cash for a declaw place more value on the cat and don't abandon it.
The 2 declawed cats we have are missing part of their pads. I watched several old style declaws when I was in college and working at a vet clinic. Many cats lost parts of toes before being pressure bandaged. Their feet were jagged with different length toes.
The declaw I watched recently the vet cut in and pulled back the skin, and painstakingly incised the smallest amount of bone possible. The wound was cauterized and the incisions were surgically glued. The cat's paws looked like paws. It can be done.
So what you are saying is better off dead than declawed? If we denied adopters that wanted to declaw we would PTS many more cats than we already do. I don't have a pollyanna view on this issue.
There are so many bigger issues than declawing. I also foster for rescue and see in this case dogs that were abused for the greater part of their lives. An abused animal trumps a few days of post-surgical pain.
The who anti-declaw "movement" smacks of PETA and AR activists.
I eat meat.
I support medical research using animals.
I wear leather.
I believe that people have a right to hunt.
I believe in having a choice regarding an elective surgery done to an animal.
I also believe that people have the right to choose to go to a reputable breeder if they don't want to adopt.

Just in case anyone is unclear on my views. You will not change them. This isn't an emotional issue, it's an issue of choice.

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

We have 2 declawed cats at the shelter vs about 40 that are not. I have been there a year now and generally people who shell out cash for a declaw place more value on the cat and don't abandon it.

Click to expand...

This has not been my experience. I know people who get a new kitten every year, have it de-clawed, then dump it on a farm when it isn't cute anymore, so they can get a new kitten. All the cats I've known that were taken to shelters have been de-clawed. I believe it cheapens a person's attitude toward an animal when they can treat it like a toy, have all the sharp bits removed.

Of all the cats that are surrendered ALREADY SPAYED/NEUTERED, how many are de-clawed? Because that's what the study was based on.

The 2 declawed cats we have are missing part of their pads.

Click to expand...

Wow, must be some real butcher vets in your area. I've never seen that. I knew a cat whose claws kept growing back so she needed several extra surgeries, and she had NO bones left in her feet at all, yet all her pads were there.

So what you are saying is better off dead than declawed? If we denied adopters that wanted to declaw we would PTS many more cats than we already do. I don't have a pollyanna view on this issue.

Click to expand...

I don't think kill shelters have much say in the matter. I don't think they should be too picky as to approving adopters. Will a shelter adopt to a home that will keep an animal outside? I suppose an animal is better off outside than dead, too. So really a kill shelter doesn't have too much choice.

BUT.....if de-clawing were illegal (or at least if vets refused to do them, which I think would be preferable....who wants the government involved?), that wouldn't be a problem. The entire thing would drop out of the public consciousness after a few years, and nobody would think of it as an option anymore. This is how it is in other countries. It's not illegal in Japan, for instance....but just TRY finding a vet that would do such a thing.

The who anti-declaw "movement" smacks of PETA and AR activists.

Click to expand...

I resent that completely. I have no use for AR or PETA. I eat meat and support hunting. I simply do not think it is in the best interest of an animal to be viewed as a toy that you can treat any way you want. And de-claw is FAR more than " a few days of post-op pain". It has serious physical (possibly psychological as well) ramifications that last for life. Look it up. Removal of bone is not something to be taken lightly.

Taking animals into our homes at it's base is selfish and against their "nature". We lock them indoors, remove their reproductive organs, and feed them from a bag or a can. When they exhibit "normal" behavior for an animal (like biting or scratching) we deem it a problem.
We keep animals because it is to our pleasure and benefit. We don't keep them because it is to *their* benefit. Most were surviving just fine before humans came along. If they didn't survive it was natural selection.

I don't see my animals as toys. They are to ME family members that I would do anything for. If I had a declawed cat it would not be devalued in my eyes. Most of society sadly sees pets as disposable. People who dump animals are people who dump animals. The mindset is already there. Declawing is not a symptom of a problem. The same people that dump a cat would do so whether or not it had claws.
I am aware of why I have them in my home, they please me. I see them for what they are and try to adjust my environment and my behavior to suit them.

The AR/PETA/H$U$ strategy is to start with easy targets. Puppy mills, pit bulls, hunting, and cosmetic surgeries fall under those categories. It's easy to get people on that bandwagon. The more restrictions are put in place the easier it is to make new restrictions. Their ultimate goal is the elimination of all companion animals and animal use. They are very well organized and know what buttons to push with JQP.
Anti-declawing falls in line with their agenda. It's a stepping stone.

Have you ever seen a piglet be altered to suit farmers after birth? The cutting of teeth and ripping out of testicles? How about a calf being "polled". You don't see PETA directly going after them because agriculture is big business. They have money to fight legislation. Uneducated pet owners are their easiest target.

but lizita+rocktosh is not shelter killing cats because of needs for spaces. lizita+rocktosh is independents rescuer that takes cats voluntary and claims efforts to make kittens have betterment of life after her interference.

that makes much difference in answers to what is right needs for kitten. To promise better life guarantees to protect from abuse of cutting toes off and to let kitten live happy in her house outside of cage until lizita+rocktosh can arrange such promised betterment of life.

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

We have 2 declawed cats at the shelter vs about 40 that are not. I have been there a year now and generally people who shell out cash for a declaw place more value on the cat and don't abandon it.
The 2 declawed cats we have are missing part of their pads. I watched several old style declaws when I was in college and working at a vet clinic. Many cats lost parts of toes before being pressure bandaged. Their feet were jagged with different length toes.
The declaw I watched recently the vet cut in and pulled back the skin, and painstakingly incised the smallest amount of bone possible. The wound was cauterized and the incisions were surgically glued. The cat's paws looked like paws. It can be done.
So what you are saying is better off dead than declawed? If we denied adopters that wanted to declaw we would PTS many more cats than we already do. I don't have a pollyanna view on this issue.
There are so many bigger issues than declawing. I also foster for rescue and see in this case dogs that were abused for the greater part of their lives. An abused animal trumps a few days of post-surgical pain.
The who anti-declaw "movement" smacks of PETA and AR activists.
I eat meat.
I support medical research using animals.
I wear leather.
I believe that people have a right to hunt.
I believe in having a choice regarding an elective surgery done to an animal.
I also believe that people have the right to choose to go to a reputable breeder if they don't want to adopt.

Just in case anyone is unclear on my views. You will not change them. This isn't an emotional issue, it's an issue of choice.

Click to expand...

I LIKE you, BK!!

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

Don't be sorry. When you work at a shelter and see the body piles in the bin from all the euthanasia finding a good home takes priority over retaining claws.

Click to expand...

It's a ridiculous argument, no offense intended, I've heard it all before. If declaw weren't an option no one would even consider it, so the cats would be adopted because people want cats, and these lazy selfish people would learn to train their cats rather than mutilate them.

Originally Posted by Willowy

ALL de-claws are done the same way. None of them involve cutting the PAD in half. Even with the old-school 80s de-claws I've never seen a cat lose its pads. The first bone of the toe is removed....it's the only way to do it so the claw doesn't grow back. I'd call that "damage". The only difference with laser de-claw is that it's done with a laser so there's less chance of excessive bleeding, but that's it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that. Laser declaw is still declaw. It's still mutilation for human convenience.

I don't believe de-clawing saves cats' lives (if you look at that study done by the AVMA, it suggests that comparatively MORE de-clawed cats are surrendered to shelters), so that argument doesn't do much for me.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Ask any rescuer how many declawed cats they rescue off the streets. As the neighborhood cat lady who feeds strays how may declaws show up. Thank you for posting.

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

Taking animals into our homes at it's base is selfish and against their "nature". We lock them indoors, remove their reproductive organs, and feed them from a bag or a can. When they exhibit "normal" behavior for an animal (like biting or scratching) we deem it a problem.
We keep animals because it is to our pleasure and benefit. We don't keep them because it is to *their* benefit. Most were surviving just fine before humans came along. If they didn't survive it was natural selection.

I don't see my animals as toys. They are to ME family members that I would do anything for. If I had a declawed cat it would not be devalued in my eyes. Most of society sadly sees pets as disposable. People who dump animals are people who dump animals. The mindset is already there. Declawing is not a symptom of a problem. The same people that dump a cat would do so whether or not it had claws.
I am aware of why I have them in my home, they please me. I see them for what they are and try to adjust my environment and my behavior to suit them.

.

Click to expand...

Cats and dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. Spay and neuter is not comparable to declawing. Your arguments are old and tired.

Declawing is amputation of a cats toes to suit human selfishness. Many countries manage just fine without it, and we will too, soon.

People who argue in favor of declaw...I always wonder what their private agenedas are. It is beyond me how anyone who proclaims to be an animal lover can be in favor of such a brutal archaic practice.

Originally Posted by otto

Where on earth did you ever come up with such an idea as that?

Aside from the "risk" of surgery there are no negatives at all to spaying and neutering. The health benefits, of preventing cancers, (both male and female) pyometra (for females) and pregnancy alone are huge. The emotional benefits, removing the sexual urges which are biological not mental, but create mental frustrations, are also huge.

Click to expand...

Open your mind just a little bit and do some research....you can't say there are "no negatives at all to s/n.." because it's just not true. Now, this article which I will link here is just one article, one vet's opinion based on research and it is about dogs, dog athletes to be specific, and it does refer mainly to early s/n (and by early I don't mean 6-8 weeks! I mean up to a year!!), but if there have been problems with s/n dogs at all, that's enough for me to say YES there are many negatives. See article here: http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

I already know that working/competing dogs are left intact and why. Of course we aren't talking about working dogs here, we are talking about cats. Specifically the declawing of cats. And why spaying and neutering cats is not in the least comparable to cutting off their toes.

Calling me closed minded is not going to hurt me, but resorting to name calling shows you are running out of arguments.

thank you LDG:

Originally Posted by LDG

Just FYI, this discussion of neutering vs declawing was held several months ago. I created a comparison list:

Declaw Surgery

Health Benefits of Declaw Surgery
None

Health Risks of Declaw Surgery
Lameness/Arthritis
Claw regrowth
Infection

Behavior Benefits of Declaw Surgery
Cats can no longer scratch humans or damage walls, furniture or accessories

Behavior Risks of Declaw Surgery
Litter box avoidance
Increased aggression (biting)

Other Risks/Benefits of Declaw Surgery

Other benefits: None.

Other risks: It should be noted that in a study published in JAVMA (referenced before), cats subject to declaw were at increased risk for relinquishment to a shelter for behavior problems (54%) vs. non-declawed cats (29%).

Alternatives to Declawing
Training
Nail caps

******************************

Spay/Neuter Surgery

Health Benefits of Neutering
Decreased risk of tumors
Decreased risk of pyometra
Decreased risk of several types of cancer
Decreased risk of communicable diseases, including FIV, FeLV and FIP due to decrease in aggression due to lack of sex drive and territoriality
Decreased risk of wounds/wound abscesses & etc.

Health Risks of Neutering
Infection
I'd be happy to include increased incidence of UTIs if you can provide reference to a study published in a peer-review journal
Obesity although important to note the problem is not a change in metabolism, so it can be controlled by cat guardians

Behavior Benefits of Neutering
Decreased aggression
Decreased territoriality/decreased roaming (and thus most stop spraying to mark territory)
Cats stop yowling when in heat or when hormones push them to want a female

Behavior Risks of Neutering
Are there any?

Other Risks/Benefits of Neutering

Other Risks: None

Other Benefits: Inability to procreate lowers unintended breeding, resulting in lowered homeless cat population, which in turn results in lower costs of sheltering, euthanization, and animal control.

Alternative to Neutering
None

***************************************

Just a question to start a discussion if I may.

The problems with declawing are from studies as reported in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association - not opinions.

Both surgeries present risk, yes. But when it comes to weighing risks vs benefits, there is just no comparison.


Lizita - I hope the reaction of the potential adopters was just one of undereducation.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by otto

Cats and dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. Spay and neuter is not comparable to declawing. Your arguments are old and tired.

Declawing is amputation of a cats toes to suit human selfishness. Many countries manage just fine without it, and we will too, soon.

People who argue in favor of declaw...I always wonder what their private agenedas are. It is beyond me how anyone who proclaims to be an animal lover can be in favor of such a brutal archaic practice.

Click to expand...

If it helps a cat get adopted I am for it. Everything we do regardless of how long animals have been domesticated is not natural. Feral cat populations would not survive if we had turned them into a creature that needed us.
I do have an agenda. It's to retain the right to own animals. I don't want to give the AR front any more victories.

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

If it helps a cat get adopted I am for it. Everything we do regardless of how long animals have been domesticated is not natural. Feral cat populations would not survive if we had turned them into a creature that needed us.
I do have an agenda. It's to retain the right to own animals. I don't want to give the AR front any more victories.

Click to expand...

Cats are good at surviving - that does not mean they are not a domesticated animal. They should not be allowed to freely procreate.

With the alternatives that exist to declawing, there is simply no reason to allow people who want to own a cat to declaw it. It is a matter of education. If they are not willing to make the effort to use the alternatives available to them, why would they make a good cat guardian?

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

If I had a declawed cat it would not be devalued in my eyes. Most of society sadly sees pets as disposable. People who dump animals are people who dump animals. The mindset is already there. Declawing is not a symptom of a problem. The same people that dump a cat would do so whether or not it had claws.

Click to expand...

Of course you wouldn't value a de-clawed act any less....nor would I. I have one de-clawed cat, he came to me as a dumped stray (being the 3rd de-clawed stray that has shown up at my house so far. NO spayed/neutered but not de-clawed strays have shown up). I value him as much as any of the other cats. It's the MINDSET of the population in general, with de-clawing being one of the things that encourages that mindset. If pets are just toys that we can alter to suit us (I would not be for spay/neuter if it were done purely for behavioral reasons, but unfortunately birth control is a necessary evil), then why not dump them when we want a new toy?

Anti-declawing falls in line with their agenda. It's a stepping stone.

Click to expand...

I suppose outlawing abuse is also a stepping stone. Once they tell you that you can't starve your pet to death if you don't want him anymore, where will it end, whine whine? The line has to be drawn somewhere, or we'd have to accept all abuse as an animal owner's right.

Have you ever seen a piglet be altered to suit farmers after birth? The cutting of teeth and ripping out of testicles? How about a calf being "polled". You don't see PETA directly going after them because agriculture is big business. They have money to fight legislation. Uneducated pet owners are their easiest target.

Click to expand...

I live in a farming community. It's true that there is a lot of abuse, but some of that is changing. For instance, hoophouse or pastured pork. They aren't crammed into tiny horrible confinements that stress them into fighting, so their teeth do not need to be broken off. It's even cheaper and more convenient for the farmers. So there is hope for improvement. No improvement would ever be considered if HSUS didn't take up the fight. I don't like them or their agenda, but no person (or group) is without some redeeming quality.

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

If it helps a cat get adopted I am for it. Everything we do regardless of how long animals have been domesticated is not natural. Feral cat populations would not survive if we had turned them into a creature that needed us.
I do have an agenda. It's to retain the right to own animals. I don't want to give the AR front any more victories.

Click to expand...

I love your agenda! It is mine too!!
I am against declawing, I really am. I would NEVER do it; and as a private rescue I would feel fine to withhold a placement in this case; I DO recognize that sometimes it might save a cat; I don't like it, but yes, it beats death.

Originally Posted by otto

I already know that working/competing dogs are left intact and why. Of course we aren't talking about working dogs here, we are talking about cats. Specifically the declawing of cats. And why spaying and neutering cats is not in the least comparable to cutting off their toes.

Calling me closed minded is not going to hurt me, but resorting to name calling shows you are running out of arguments.

thank you LDG:

Click to expand...

Ummm, I wasn't trying to hurt you (???), not sure where that came from. And I see nowhere that I used namecalling!! Are we on the same page (literally!)?? I don't think so. I was speaking of s/n GENERALLY...and some of the facts in the link I posted certainly could possibly apply to cats too.....I mean really.....whether it is good or not, and I submit that s/n prevents unwanted litters and it does reduce the incidence of mammary tumors, but good or not, it is STILL the REMOVAL of body parts that are there for a reason..and it's not JUST procreation! Imagine that!

Originally Posted by LDG

Cats are good at surviving - that does not mean they are not a domesticated animal. They should not be allowed to freely procreate.

With the alternatives that exist to declawing, there is simply no reason to allow people who want to own a cat to declaw it. It is a matter of education. If they are not willing to make the effort to use the alternatives available to them, why would they make a good cat guardian?

Click to expand...

OWNER.....please....OWNER not guardian, yuck! But I do agree with your line of thinking...of course one should educate first and an owner needs to try EVERYTHING before going the declaw route. If they don't, then no, I agree with you...not good owner material...no dedication shown. Blech.

Sorry to take this thread off topic, but I really want to respond to that.

I care for my cats. They are rescues, I did not purchase them. I do not consider myself an owner.

There is an old joke, "Dogs have owners, cats have staff." I find it to be one of those jokes that holds a lot of truth.

...cat "owner".... yuck!

Originally Posted by LDG

Sorry to take this thread off topic, but I really want to respond to that.

I care for my cats. They are rescues, I did not purchase them. I do not consider myself an owner.

There is an old joke, "Dogs have owners, cats have staff." I find it to be one of those jokes that holds a lot of truth.

...cat "owner".... yuck!

Click to expand...

I like that re: cats..they do have staff,good one

"Owner".....retains your rights to keep, care for and love your pets! Nothing yuck about that at all. I own them and they own me right back

Guardian is an animal rights term which is intended to raise animals' social level to that of children and other dependents; it takes away the property RIGHT of the (owner) ....wherein if someone decides they don't like the way you take care of given animal, they can have your animal taken away. Sure, sounds good on the surface, doesn't it? But who defines proper care? You? Me? Someone you drastically disagree with? This is a slippery slope........this is America where we take our property rights seriously. I OWN my animals BECAUSE I LOVE them; one of my worst fears is someone stealing one of my animals...no WAY am I going to open the door to that by accepting the title guardian and relinquishing my rightful LOVING ownership. Animal rights !!! If you love your animals, calling yourself an owner doesn't make you love them less! And if you are a bad owner, calling you a guardian ain't gonna make you suddenly appreciate Fluffy more!

It's an issue of semantics that has nothing to do with the law. Animals are property, whatever we chose to call them on these boards.

Originally Posted by LDG

It's an issue of semantics that has nothing to do with the law. Animals are property, whatever we chose to call them on these boards.

Click to expand...

I know that it appears that way on the surface....but if you research it (and I don't mean that offensively), the animal rights movement IS pushing a change to the word guardian for the very reasons that I stated in my last post. Otherwise why would they make such a big deal about it if there isn't an agenda? Sadly there is one.