Cats declawed?

yes it would be mean declawing your cats, if you hit it into the search box at the top you will find lots of threads telling you why you SHOULDNT declaw your cat(s)

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur...ed=0CDwQ9QEwBw

its not pretty and it may result in your cat(s) having behavioural problems, its like someone cutting your finger off at the first knuckle, how would you scratch yourself?

there will be some members that will be able to show you a lot better links than what i could quickly find

Declawing is kind of a "hot button" for most TCS members. The short answer is yes, it would be mean to get them declawed.

TCS is an anti-declaw site, because it is actually cruel to the cats. It's not like removing a human finger-nail (though that would be bad enough!). Cats claws, as I'm sure you know, retract. This means they are attached to a tendon, so "declawing" is really an incorrect way of putting what happens. The entire end of the toe from the last joint must be amputated.

It is illegal in 23 countries around the world. Several cities in California and Norfolk, Virginia have made it illegal to "declaw" cats.

There are so many things that can go wrong as well. If not done properly, the claws regrow, and that can be intensely painful. Some cats will stop using their litter boxes when declawed because of sensitivity in their foot. Some cats will start biting as a result, because they no longer have their natural defense.

Cats actually walk on their toes. So imagine that you don't use your whole foot to walk, you walk on your toes - and you have to have all your toes amputated from the last joint. You'd walk funny. This happens to cats, and many develop arthritis as a result of the funny posture it creates.

I'm so sorry you had to move into a building that requires cats to be declawed. Maybe you could work on educating the management about the problems of decalwing - and simply have them require an extra pet deposit for people with cats? I assume they don't require dogs to be declawed??? Dogs claws aren't retractable, so if they allow dogs but not cats with their claws, there's a good starting point for making your case.

...but please do not declaw your cats. Maybe keep looking for another place to live?

Here is an informative thread if you'd like to learn more or have information to take to the building if you want to work on getting them to change the policy (actual data and articles published in scientific journals about it are on page 3 of this thread): http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho....php?p=2472311

One suggestion that some people have had luck with - talk to the management of the place you're looking at moving into, and ask if you can just keep your cats wearing Soft Paws while living there?

I, too, have started looking for someplace to rent. I have quite a few cats that have their claws, and trust me, I know how hard it is to find someplace that would allow them. I did find several places, though, that didn't care - and that didn't charge an arm & a leg for rent.

Where are the cats now ? If you are currently looking for a place, keep looking. There are some landlords who love cats as much as you do, and will take the risk with the carpets. They don't all require declawing your cat. And if you own a vehicle, you have a lot more choices. Usually that requirement can be found in the more expensive apartments. Personally, I'd rather live in something "less nice" or pay liability for any damage and/or a 2 mos security deposit then give up my cat or declaw him, but, that's my personal opinion. Good luck.

YES IT WOULD BE CRUEL, not to mention inhumane.

I've seen more damage done to floors(like wood) done by dogs than cats. I have also seen more carpet damage done by dogs who tried to dig up the carpet.

Paul's psycho landlord(this dude has issues, I once had to hide in the closet so he wouldn't find me there, he looked right at me too and didn't see me) tried to make him declaw Maude but was more than happy to not require it as long as she had a scratching post and wasn't going to destroy the place.

Have you asked specific places if they ignore to rule or enforce it strictly. I think psycho landlord of Paul's had it in there to see if people would just get it done or he could point it out and have them do it if the cat started destroying things(more of a CYA thing and I think that was more likely.)

Taryn

Dogs potentially do as much if not more damage than cats with digging, scratching, pooping and peeing on floors of all kinds. I also have to wonder if the declawing thing can be enforced legally. Didn't LawGuy (member on here) go through something like this??

I'm pretty sure an association would lose if challenged legally.

Seriously, this makes no sense. The only stuff a cat can damage with its claws are soft furnishings, which are presumably the property of the tenant, and perhaps the trim at doorways for scratching posts if you don't provide them something better to scratch. Seems odd that a building would be concerned about microscopic damage to floors and not seem to think about urine all over the carpets, linoleum, and even counters and walls because declawed cats often develop litter box problems.

That's what I was told I am paying a pet deposit + 20.00 extra rent every month for...well, not in those exact words, but I got their point.

Definitely the trim on the door ways! Cammy likes to use that. I have to tell her to use her super scratcher. Other then that, like you said...just personal property in my experience.

Another reason not to declaw a cat is the emotional adjustment on the kitty. This happened to a co-worker of mine. She moved in with her boyfriend, and had 3 cats at the time. He told her she could only take 2 and had to have them declawed as he didn't want his leather sofa ruined. I took in the one cat she had to get rid of and he was spared the pain. The two cats she had declawed did not take to it well. One ran away (and she refused to look for him even though she thought he was nearby) and the other acted out (peeing outside the litterbox, excessive hissing) before something was "done". (Not sure if the something was rehoming, PTS or just putting the kitty out as she wasn't working with me at the time and came back to visit and I heard it in passing.) PS the BF's dog ruined the sofa with his claw marks.

I know the stress of looking for an apartment with multiple cats. I hope it can work out for you soon.

I wouldn't adjust well emotionally if someone cut off every one of the tips of my fingers either. To give an idea of the pain, it's a common torture method in humans.

Yup, very cruel. Very glad to hear you're seeking another answer. I've had to struggle in the past with finding an apartment that accomodates pets. I really hate landlords that forbid pets, they're such a big part of the homeless pet problem.

check you local craigslist for apartments/houses that allow animals. I live in the Cleveland/Akron area of Ohio and I see apts and houses for rent that allow animals all the time

If I had a rental I wouldn't allow pets. You have obviously never seen a place destroyed by a renter's pets. My parents had to tear up all carpets and replace the pad after the renter's dog(in a no pets property mind you, the dog shouldn't have lived there) decided to go all over the house. My boyfriend at the time I was living in Vegas(he's now my ex-husband) his apartment next door to mine smelled like someone never let their dog out. I mean it STUNK and it entered into my apartment at times and made it smell(the landlord told me his apartment was the reason she no longer allowed dogs at all.) I won't go into cat spray and other cat pee and poo damage. Also, won't go into physical damage done by cats and dogs(mostly dogs) that don't involve them not being housebroken/litter box trained.

It's the irresponsible ones who ruin it for the good ones. That said I'd rather all out ban pets than demand them to have mutilating surgery.

I just can't say I blame people not wanting their renter's to have pets. Too many irresponsible people out there.

Taryn

There are ways to mitigate rental damage caused by pets. I've read up on it because I plan to own rental properties someday and I intend to allow pets. I don't think not banning pets on the property works anyway because TONS of people will sneak the pets in and then you don't have any control at all. If you allow pets---with specific pet rules---you have more control. And then you have better tenants because good pet owners are grateful to find a place that allows pets and they'll stay longer.

First, you charge a pet deposit that's enough to cover some damage, usually equal to a month's rent. Make it clear that they will get this back if the place doesn't have pet damage, this makes them responsible for their pet's behavior. Charge a small amount of "pet rent" per month, or require them to get pet owner's rental insurance and show you proof. Require a pet interview (you meet the pets), vet notes and proof of spay/neuter by 4 months of age. That rules out a lot of irresponsible pet owners. I would discourage de-clawing of new cats because of the increased risk of pee everywhere but I wouldn't turn them away if their existing cat/s were de-clawed. And inspect the property regularly.

I've left apts cleaner then when we moved in and I had cats WITH claws. Even the landlord told us that he couldn't even tell there had been a cat there!

But I would rent to those with pets on certain conditions and have a pretty big fee at the start (would be returned if no damage done). The major condition would be proof the pet was neutered/spayed!

The only complaint I see as within the right of rental owners are pet deposit fees and increased rent charges. Spay/neuter is a good indication of responsibility and I'm all in favor of it -- but can something really be required legally of a leasee that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the maintenance or condition of the property ???? And anyway, isn't forcing owners to fix their pets a little like forcing a person to be sterilized ?? :-;

In my case as apartment manager the first thing I would want to exclude would be families with small children....but unfortunately that means everyone else in the building would have to be in their '60's or older...

That is also illegal. That would get HUD on you since that is actually very illegal to refuse to rent to people of any age. It's discrimination, only retirement communities are allowed to have that restriction, there is a special exception for them.

Also, meeting the pets, depending on the pet, some just aren't too into other people. Maude hated most everyone. The only person she accepted immediately was my MIL(my ex's mom.) Other than that she hissed and struck and did not like people. She charged my son(I was washing my hands and threw them at her and the water distracted her) and he'd been coming around for over 2 years and wasn't doing anything to her(he knew to leave her alone.) She even hissed at Paul and I on occasion. Molly, Paul's dog, was more of a barker and didn't like other people. She had been abused in the past so she was reserved and didn't want to have anything to do with anyone she didn't know because she was afraid of them. That said they were great animals didn't destroy anything or potty in the house(well Molly did a few times at 17 just because she was old and her kidneys were going bad, but it was very rare. It was one of the several reasons behind getting her put to sleep on top of her horribly painful teeth, and her not being able to be put under due to the risk and her kidneys because she was getting larger but losing weight so she was filling with fluid.)

Getting an animal altered isn't always a sign of a responsible owner, a lot of places require the animal to be altered before going home. You just don't know who will take care of the place and who won't. The best place to start is their past landlords where they have had the pets living they can tell you if the animal was destructive there or had any issues with the animal.

Paul's landlords love him because he takes are of the places he rents and his pets don't damage anything. He had a hard time finding places that would allow him to rent with a cat and a dog.

Like I said I wouldn't take the risk, actually I'd prolly do it on a case-by-case basis, pets can do a lot more damage than a pet deposit would even begin to cover. I disagree with the places that have non-refundable pet deposits or part of it is non-refundable. If my pet doesn't destroy anything why should they get to keep all or part of the deposit. I'm also not fond of pet rent. I would have to talk to previous landlords to find out how the pet worked out on their property. If they are being evicted due to the pet(and it isn't a no-pet property) then you know something is wrong and shouldn't rent to them with the pet. Not that I would rent to anyone without talking to previous landlords to find out what type of renters they are in general.

Taryn

A private landlord can require anything of a renter that isn't illegal (based on race, age, religion, etc.). Though there are different rules if you apply for goverment aid to provide subsidized housing. People don't have to rent YOUR house, they have a choice to go elsewhere if they don't like your rules. Free market. So it's not really forcing them to do anything.

And spaying/neutering cats certainly DOES have something to do with the maintenance and condition of the properly, being that toms will spray all over, females in heat will pee all over and attract toms (who will spray all over), and if they're frequently giving away kittens there will be strangers at the house a lot. It's a bit different with dogs, I admit. Though I would still require spay/neuter of renters with dogs, it's just not as important as with cats, behavior-wise. I certainly wouldn't want someone raising a litter of puppies in my rental home, though!

No. Why would it be the same? There are entire cities and even countries that require spay/neuter of pets. Whatever opinions people have of that law, it does happen, and animals are not the same as humans. Otherwise they wouldn't be killed when homes cannot be found for them. If requiring sterilization of pets could be considered the same as forced sterilization of humans, than killing animals in shelters would be considered murder.

I said it doesn't show they are responsible pet owners. Of course if I rented to anyone their pets have to be altered. Male dogs will also mark their territory inside. Bitches in heat also can bleed all over and leave stains from the discharge. I won't even go into an irresponsible owner letting an animal have babies where ever they want in the house.

It's just really kind of a crap shoot with renters with pets. Most of the time they are either really good or really bad and all it takes is one bad one to spoil the landlord from ever renting to anyone with pets again.

Taryn

It really is. We've always left an apartment cleaner when we move out than it was when we moved in. When we lived in Iowa our apartment complex was subject to city inspections...The inspector couldn't believe we had 3 cats, she said normally they would smell it in the hall (i.e. cat pee smell ).

We've also seen some of the trashed by pets apartments when apartment hunting. My DH went to look at one that he said it was so bad you could smell it when you walked in the building.

I'm so glad we were able to buy a house. Finding rentals that took 3 cats and weren't a total dump, was very very difficult. And I don't think I could ever be a land lord. My aunt & uncle did that for a while, and they were very glad to get out of it.

That's true. But it helps reduce the impact of that irresponsibility. And at least they're only irresponsible with one pet instead of one pet and her hundreds of babies.