or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Vets and Declawing..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vets and Declawing.. - Page 3

post #61 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess
Ear triming and tail docking is done to meet "Breed Standards". From what I understand the breeder does it shortly after birth. I'm not saying I agree with it, but if you don't like it go talk to your national kennel club about it.
Slitty-kittay lives in the EU, and the breed standards were changed here some years ago to allow for the legal bans on such practices. There was a transition period, but now you no longer see dogs with docked tails and cropped ears (unless unregistered, and from some backyard breeder). Declawing bans go back farther than that. Cat fanciers' associations have also banned the breeding of some cats (e.g., Sphinx, Munchkin, Peke-faced Persians, white, blue-eyed cats that are deaf).
post #62 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Slitty-kittay lives in the EU, and the breed standards were changed here some years ago to allow for the legal bans on such practices. There was a transition period, but now you no longer see dogs with docked tails and cropped ears (unless unregistered, and from some backyard breeder). Declawing bans go back farther than that. Cat fanciers' associations have also banned the breeding of some cats (e.g., Sphinx, Munchkin, Peke-faced Persians, white, blue-eyed cats that are deaf).

Hmm why a ban on the Sphinx?
post #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by slitty_kittay
How is that supposed to justify it? Its purely for looks - pointless from the dogs point of view - the owners just want them to conform to some silly asthetic ideal. Its fine if you want to get cosmetic surgery, but I will always let it be known that I think its wrong to put your animals through it!
Its also illegal in sweden

It just makes me wonder why some people get pets in the first place.
Right on! I wish it were illegal here. I don't care what the AKA thinks. I bet the dogs think they look better with tails and ears.
post #64 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScamperFarms
Hmm why a ban on the Sphinx?
I'm really not sure, but apparently they consider its lack of a coat a natural mutation that shouldn't have been encouraged. I've seen a few Mexican Hairless here, but they're also not registered or shown.
post #65 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I'm really not sure, but apparently they consider its lack of a coat a natural mutation that shouldn't have been encouraged. I've seen a few Mexican Hairless here, but they're also not registered or shown.

Interesting.....
post #66 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosiemac
Spotz, i won't ramble on either! but yet AGAIN we beg to differ, because as i said before, like you the majority of us on TCS feel like this on the subject but it says a lot to me when theres more people in the USA who are against it

And it's not that i'm shocked that the USA does declawing, i just can't see why it's necessary!
You are absolutely correct, it isn't necessary.

In some regards, I am quite happy that there are so many people against declawing, for the most part it is these people that are stimulating change both from owners and from veterinarians. I love that they are out there teaching people that ther are great alternatives to declawing, I love how some of them have actually made alternatives such as the nail caps. I love how they have encouraged a closer review of the procedure from some of the leading veterinary organizations in the country. All of this is good news. My disagreement with the anti-declaw camp, is not over the "necessity" of declawing [or lack thereof], but rather the gross misrepresentation of the procedure that is commonly offered.

---

There are rare instances where there is a medical reason for declawing. There are also limited cases where all the alternatives to declawing fail to work, cases where the cat continues to claw inappropriate items, regardless of the availability of scratching posts, nail caps, etc. These cases are far from the norm though. In such a case, where the owner has reached a point where regardless of the amount of time, and effort put towards alternative methods the scratching continues to be a terminal problem. There is really only two solutions, remove the cat and thus the ability of the animal to scratch, or have the claws humanely removed and keep the cat.

This is where I think the countries that have outlawed declawing are totally wrong, because they have removed the most humane choice[IMO]. The choice to keep the animal in a truely loving home, rather than having to remove the animal from an otherwise loving home. In this situation Declawing has merit, and the ability of a vet to perform a proper procedure in such a situation is highly beneficial to the animal and to the owner.

I don't think that Vets should push the procedure like some do, I know there are great vets out there that try their best to work with the owners on using alternatives first. I do really hate the fact that landlords and management companies are allowed to mandate declawing for their tenants, and do believe that this clause should be illegal. But I still am quite certain that declawing [done properly] has a function that can be mutually beneficial to both the cat and the owner. On the whole declawing is unnecessary, but the lack of necessity doesn't mean that it is wrong or cruel or inhumane.

Spotz
post #67 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat
I posted this in the past, but I thought that some of you may be interested in Ray Thunderhawk's (of Ray Thunderhawk' Big Cat Rescue) position is on declawing. Warning - he is pretty direct.
http://www.thunderhawk.org/pages/declawing.shtml
Sad indeed, I can understand his reasoning too, and can't say I totally disagree.

What makes it worse is that the procedure was botched from the beginning...most likely performed by a vet that was not familiar with the type of animal he was operating on. This is why I so strongly stress that if the procedure is going to be done, that it has to be done "Properly".

In this case, because of a botched surgery, declawing was clearly cruel, and inhumane. The story would be completely different had it been performed by a vet who is familiar with these animals and who understood what it takes to declaw such an animal. [Perhaps such a vet, would have even offered alternatives before performing such a procedure.] Sadly for this lioness, the world will never know.

But to blame the inadaquacy of the veterinarian in this case, on declawing as a whole is not right. A proper declaw would not have had such dire consequences. This is tantamount to banning alcohol because someone was irresponsible enough to get drunk and kill someone. It wasn't the fact that alcohol is available that caused the death, nor is it the fact that declawing is legal that caused the lioness to die. But rather the lack of responsibility of the drunk, and the veterinarian.

Vets need to take a more responsible stance on declawing, offering education and alternatives to declawing, rather than simply treating declawing as nothing more than a "bonus" procedure to be offered with S/N.

Spotz
post #68 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by slitty_kittay
How is that supposed to justify it? Its purely for looks - pointless from the dogs point of view - the owners just want them to conform to some silly asthetic ideal.

The breeder does it when they are born, before they are sold/adopted whatever. The owner has nothing to do with it like I said. I'm not justifying anything, I was just saying.
post #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spotz
Sad indeed, I can understand his reasoning too, and can't say I totally disagree.

What makes it worse is that the procedure was botched from the beginning...most likely performed by a vet that was not familiar with the type of animal he was operating on. This is why I so strongly stress that if the procedure is going to be done, that it has to be done "Properly".

In this case, because of a botched surgery, declawing was clearly cruel, and inhumane. The story would be completely different had it been performed by a vet who is familiar with these animals and who understood what it takes to declaw such an animal. [Perhaps such a vet, would have even offered alternatives before performing such a procedure.] Sadly for this lioness, the world will never know.

But to blame the inadaquacy of the veterinarian in this case, on declawing as a whole is not right. A proper declaw would not have had such dire consequences. This is tantamount to banning alcohol because someone was irresponsible enough to get drunk and kill someone. It wasn't the fact that alcohol is available that caused the death, nor is it the fact that declawing is legal that caused the lioness to die. But rather the lack of responsibility of the drunk, and the veterinarian.

Vets need to take a more responsible stance on declawing, offering education and alternatives to declawing, rather than simply treating declawing as nothing more than a "bonus" procedure to be offered with S/N.

Spotz
I agree that blaming a botched surgery on declawing as a whole is not right. No argument there. My purpose for posting the website was to illustrate that if Ray Thunderhawk's Big Cat Rescue doesn't declaw big cats, those who believe in declawing little cats for their own convenience should reconsider.
post #70 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess
The breeder does it when they are born, before they are sold/adopted whatever. The owner has nothing to do with it like I said. I'm not justifying anything, I was just saying.
Supply & demand: If people refused to buy these poor puppies, breeders would stop these needless surgeries. If someone requested a puppy ahead of time who had their ears and tail intact, my guess is the breeder would comply. (I know you aren't justifying it.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Vets and Declawing..