why are cats declawed

Oh no, not another declaw thread. I will not even speak in this one, I don't want to spark my bobcat moodiness I will just sit and watch from my den

I don't agree that neutering is equal to declawing. Neutering is done to prevent unwanted breeding, and thus is done for the benefit of society as a whole, to prevent us being overrun with cats & dogs etc. Declawing is for the benefit of the household, whether it is to protect your furniture or your health.

Maybe I have been lucky. I have kept many indoor cats, and my house has never been ripped up by any of them. I don't clip claws, or use claw covers, the cats are as nature made them, and my house (although a bit messy - my fault!) looks OK to me.

As an aside, I recently got hold of some very old riding magazines (from the 40s & 50s), English ones. In them there was a debate raging (much like this declawing one) about whether tail docking in horses should be banned. A lot of Brits wanted to keep on docking, people from the US and Canada were saying, don't do it, it's inhumane. It was banned, I'm thankful to say, eventually. And yet, in the US it's legal to declaw!

Sue

Originally Posted by valanhb

And in the scenario you just presented...you made your choice. You choose the furniture. Fine, it is still legal in the US to declaw whenever the owner finds it more convenient.

But it is also the owner's choice NOT to get their cat declawed under any circumstance.
Me personally - I value my pets' lives and quality of life as I view it above the resale value or damage deposit. They are indoor only, and I still won't ever do a declaw again. It doesn't matter whether or not they are indoor or outdoor to ME.

Click to expand...

Would you buy a house with thousands of dollars of repairs needed???? No, Not many would. If I am going to invest money in my home I want to ensure the value of that home is going to remain constant. That helps not only the selling value, but margage levels and your alibity to borrow against your home. My kitten is indoors all the time. If he were to suddenly begin to scratch my parents leather couches, do you think he would ever be welcome in my parents home. No. If he wre to suddenly use the walls as a sctaching post I would look into it getting him delcawed. and rather quickly I might add.
FYI Declawing is not the same as tail and ear altering. That is done on pure breed dogs, within the first few weeks of birth. It is also done to maintain a breed standard, have you ever seen a Pug with a long tail?? Go talk to the Kennel Club to try to change it.

Seems rather wacky to me to buy a pet cat then deface it by having the claws ripped out. Cats come with claws if you dont like it simply dont have one. I and many other people in this country have horses, should we have their hooves removed so they cant hurt anyone when they kick?

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Seems rather wacky to me to buy a pet cat then deface it by having the claws ripped out. Cats come with claws if you dont like it simply dont have one. I and many other people in this country have horses, should we have their hooves removed so they cant hurt anyone when they kick?

Click to expand...

Cat's claws are not ripped out. The are surgically removed.

Originally Posted by eburgess

Would you buy a house with thousands of dollars of repairs needed????

Click to expand...

Just how much damage do you think a cat can do with it's claws??? If it has litterbox issues or spraying issues, I can see thousands with having to replace entire floors, floorboards, walls and real structural elements, but the WORST they will do is rip up some carpet or maybe do some damage to the exterior of a wall. Carpet ain't that expensive, and drywall and spackle are cheap. Cats are not going to actually do structural damage to a building with their claws unless they totally run rampant through the interior structure, and even then the damage would come more from urine and feces than scratching.

Besides that, if there is that much damage, the buyer would generally have the estimated cost of repairs deducted from the asking price or that the seller do the repairs at their cost prior to closing as a contingency of the contract. That's just common practice, at least in my area.

Originally Posted by eburgess

FYI Declawing is not the same as tail and ear altering. That is done on pure breed dogs, within the first few weeks of birth. It is also done to maintain a breed standard, have you ever seen a Pug with a long tail?? Go talk to the Kennel Club to try to change it.

Click to expand...

Iam fairly sure that it is now illegal to dock a puppys or dogs tail here in Australia now even pedigree ones. I watched the news the other day and a man had been charged, but I think that he did it him self at home. But I still think that the vets cant do it now either. Any one from Australia no for sure if this is true.

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Seems rather wacky to me to buy a pet cat then deface it by having the claws ripped out. Cats come with claws if you dont like it simply dont have one. I and many other people in this country have horses, should we have their hooves removed so they cant hurt anyone when they kick?

Click to expand...

To follow along with the current theme, we definitely should reconsider our habit of gutting female cats, and just chopping the testicles off of males. We also shouldn't forcibly inject substances into these animals that cause excruciating pain and swelling.

Isn't it just so horrible to watch a helpless horse be subjected to such inhumane acts...I mean...have you ever watched a farrier barbarically pound nail after nail into a horses hoof...the only term that I can think of to compare such brutality with is crucifixion. Driving nail after nail into a living being....how could anyone ever argue that this practice is humane?!??!



Now honestly...what is the value of such blatant misrepresentations of fact? Declawing cannot be associated with "having the claws ripped out" in anything but a great stretch of imagination, it simply does not happen that way at all. Nor do any of the other things that I satirically addressed above.

Learn the truth; it's really not all that hard to do. Declawing is optional, widely unnecessary, but hardly inhumane or cruel. Declawing is not the horrid procedure that the widespread misinformation makes it out to be. But it's also hardly a procedure that is necessary, as some veterinarians have a tendency to play it off as, or as habit/upbringing have ingrained in many peoples minds.


Spotz

I wouldn't exactly compare declawing to neutering, but I find it a bit ironic the people who say cutting off the first joint of the cats toe is any more human than castrating him. Ask any man what he thinks of this opinion

MANY people have cats neutered for the same reasons they have their cats declawed. It isn't for the possible health benefits. Our little segment of cat society here isn't the "norm" -- MOST people have their cat "fixed" so it doesn't stink up their house and damage their furniture with spraying. If they have multiple cats it may be to prevent breeding, or fighting. For MOST average pet owners, it's a convenience issue just like declawing.

Now I'm not all for declawing. Cosmo recently came into my life with claws and I will not take him to be declawed. However, if I found out any of us was particularly at risk by him having claws (if one of us become immuno-compromised in some way, or if it turned out my kids or husband was allergic to cat-scratches) I might have to consider it. Comere (RB) was declawed when I got him and I'll tell you something, he was one of the most affectionate cats ever, so I doubt declawing had any adverse effect on his personality. He was also an indoor-outdoor cat the second 2/3 of his life (yeah, I know, "gasp") and did quite fine defending himself and protecting himself... in his younger years had no problems catching mice and birds.

It's a choice pet owners will make for a variety of reasons. I'd encourage people to only do it if they feel it's absolutely necessary and to get as much unbiased info as possible (just the facts please)... but I don't agree it should be outlawed.

You cant compare neutering a cat with having claws removed. Neutering is done for humane reasons - ie - too many kittens, not enough kind homes to go round see. I cant get my head around this declawing lark. For my own part, if my cats claw the carpet so what. I've learnt a valuable lesson - I dont have carpet again, I would have varnished floorboards instead, far more trendy. I just find all this whacky and rather suspect as to a person's motives for having any sort of pet at all. Perhaps subconsciously, humans do these sort of 'unusual' things to try and score one up on an animal and try to prove their superiority. Ooops my psychology reading coming out again!!!!!

I don't really want to get into this debate tooo much but i'll tell my story

When i was younger my parents bought a kitty for me a my brother. This cat was insane and really grumpy to children. One day he decided to scratch my eyes out and i had to be sent to the hospital. After this incedent the cat was declawed. He actually became a better of a cat afterwards. No problems. When he turned 15 the old grumpyness came back but thats a different story.

Now Sakura is not declawed and she's the sweetest kitty ever. I plan to never declaw her. I have teached all about the great uses of a scratching post.

I think there are certain situations that make declawing ok. I dont think it should be banned. It's all up to the owners and how they feel. It's not the choice of society as a whole to decide whats best, its up to the individual owner.

note: the cat did not actually take my eyes out he just had me wear an eye patch for several days.

Originally Posted by kittylea

I don't really want to get into this debate tooo much but i'll tell my story
When i was younger my parents bought a kitty for me a my brother. This cat was insane and really grumpy to children. One day he decided to scratch my eyes out and i had to be sent to the hospital. After this incedent the cat was declawed. He actually became a better of a cat afterwards. No problems. When he turned 15 the old grumpyness came back but thats a different story.

Now Sakura is not declawed and she's the sweetest kitty ever. I plan to never declaw her. I have teached all about the great uses of a scratching post.

I think there are certain situations that make declawing ok. I dont think it should be banned. It's all up to the owners and how they feel. It's not the choice of society as a whole to decide whats best, its up to the individual owner.note: the cat did not actually take my eyes out he just had me wear an eye patch for several days.

Click to expand...

Perfect example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Kitty!!!!

Declawing is done because people somehow get it into their heads that their furniture suffers when it is scratched but their cat won't know the difference if his toes are amputated.

And that pretty much sums it up. It's sacrificing the well-being of a creature who can feel pain for the benefit of an inanimate object.

And no, it's not comparable at all to spay/neuter. Sheter overpopulation is the #1 killer of domestic cats in the US and this is only preventable through s/n. Declawing, in contrast, offers no benefit to the cat and is done merely for the convenience of the humans.

And no, it's not comparable at all to spay/neuter. Sheter overpopulation is the #1 killer of domestic cats in the US and this is only preventable through s/n. Declawing, in contrast, offers no benefit to the cat and is done merely for the convenience of the humans.

Click to expand...

This is why I replied the way I did. What you say is true about over-population, and I live in an area where this is particularly bad. But this isn't the reason the average pet owner has their cat "fixed". It's for the same conveniences as declawing (in their eyes)... So their furniture/carpets aren't wrecked or so they have a "friendlier" cat.

Originally Posted by vegansoprano

Declawing is done because people somehow get it into their heads that their furniture suffers when it is scratched but their cat won't know the difference if his toes are amputated.

Click to expand...

What about people who would become very ill if scratched? (Aids and transplants patients, to name a couple.) Wouldn't you rather see a cat get a home even if it means declawing rather then be murdered due to overpopulation?

Would a seriously ill person spend enough time out of hospital to actually be able to look after a cat?

Posted my last note too quickly.
Enough of this declawing debate. Declawing is barbaric and obscene. If people have to have a cat but really need to preserve their precious furniture by getting the poor creature declawed, then forget it, get yerselves a cuddly soft toy cat. Folk who buy pets (whatever animal they are) and then proceed to mutilate it for whatever reason, should not own a pet. I know this might offend but my thought is not for mere mortals, it is for cats (far superior and intelligent then the folk who own them). Folk who are really love animals, put them first and themselves last. If you really want a cat (or any animal) think very carefully. No one needs to own a cat, dog, horse, elephant or whatever. When you have an animal THAT ANIMAL COMES FIRST - YOU SECOND. So if you're so besotted with your precious furniture and want it to remain intact, dont get a cat. Perhaps one day, aliens will land from mars, they may even want a pet human but cant put up with the human having some (as they see it) antisocial trait, so they chop off its left foot. Get my drift. Nothing annoys me more than folk who want animals so bad that by owning them causes them some sort of stress or suffering. My cats are fully armed and used to have a whale of a time clawing the furniture - so - we bought some more that was unattractive to them and stopped stropping their claws on it.

Originally Posted by ComeresMom

This is why I replied the way I did. What you say is true about over-population, and I live in an area where this is particularly bad. But this isn't the reason the average pet owner has their cat "fixed". It's for the same conveniences as declawing (in their eyes)... So their furniture/carpets aren't wrecked or so they have a "friendlier" cat.

Click to expand...

I think you're right about the reasons why many people s/n, but there is still a huge difference between s/n and declawing. It's true that s/n means that the guardian will not have to deal with litters of kittens, smelly tomcat urine, etc, but it's also true that the cat benefits greatly from being s/n, and because the cat is not contributing to cat overpopulation, all of "cat-kind" benefits every time an individual cat is s/n. So while the individual's motive for s/n may be selfish, the act itself is still very good and important for reasons that extend well beyond the person's self-interest.

Given the importance of spay/neuter, I'm glad that s/n animals make better pets. It's hard to reach people who are not educated about animal issues with talk of animal overpopulation and shelter euthanasia, but it's easy to communicate to them that if they s/n, their male cat's urine won't stink anymore and their female cat won't have kittens.

In contrast, declawing is harmful to the cat and does not confer any benefit upon him. The only reason to declaw is human convenience.

I totally agree with you about spaying and neutering. I think this is essential. Spaying and neutering is not mutilation but necessary.

Originally Posted by wodesorel

What about people who would become very ill if scratched? (Aids and transplants patients, to name a couple.) Wouldn't you rather see a cat get a home even if it means declawing rather then be murdered due to overpopulation?

Click to expand...

Given the choice between "declawed or dead", of course I would choose "declawed". I mean, I'd rather have no fingers than be dead. But this argument is used too often as an excuse to continue declawing. Declawed may be better than dead, but alive *and* with toes intact is better than either of them!

For folks with compromised immune systems, first of all I would not recommend having a pet at all if contact with the normal flora carried by all animals (including humans) can be pathogenic for them due to their reduced immune function. If they already have a cat, the biggest thing that must be done is to prevent the possibility of being bitten by the cat. Most cats carry Pasteurella in their mouths and this can cause nasty infections even in people with normal immune systems. For someone without a normal immune system, this would be absolutely devastating. Since declawed cats bite much more often than non-declawed cats, it would be unwise for a person with poor immune function to have their cat declawed since they would actually be increasing their risk of serious infection.

As for scratches, there are plenty of alternatives to declawing. Simple nail trimming is enough to blunt the claws so that they can't pierce the skin. SoftPaws are another option.

It's interesting to note that cats are always declawed in front and only very rarely in the back. I've been clawed many times and while front claws tend to make superficial scratches, back claws pretty much shred the skin because the claws are less sharp (therefore creating a wider and more jagged cut) and the muscles in the cat's back legs are much stronger. I'd much rather be scratched by a front claw than a back claw, both from the pain and cosmetic disfigurement caused by each type. It seems logical, then, that if scratches were the real concern, cats would be declawed in back and left alone in front.