Adopter wants to declaw - should I deny or approve?

[ldg]

They can pursue whatever word they want - unless they're changing the law, it makes not one iota of difference. I will research it. I don't know that I'm against it, quite frankly. Animal protection/rights laws are terrible in most States. The definition of "care" in most States is sorely lacking, though this subject really needs to be moved to IMO.

 

[furryfriends50]

I don't own any cats. They own me. I just take care of them

When they are sick or sad they are always called "honey" "baby" "sweety" not "cat"....

All of mine are my kids, I'm their proud mommy!!!

As for declawing - its horrible. Cut off your figure tips and see how you feel!!!

 

[ldg]

Originally Posted by Allmycats

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.

OK. I researched it. No offense meant here either, but how much research on the subject did you do? It seems to me that your concerns are totally overblown:

1) The campaign to replace "guardian" for owner became part of a national campaign led by In Defense of Animals (http://www.guardiancampaign.com/) called "They are not our property - we are not their owners." While the IDA seeks to "reconstruct the social and legal relationship between humans and animals," they have made very little progress in this regard.

2) Boulder, CO was the first municipality to pass an amendment to an animal ordinance to include the "guardian" term. Over the 10 years since IDA started the campaign, approximately 30 local jurisdictions throughout the US (and several in Canada) have legislated the term in animal statutes - as has the State of Rhode Island.

3) HOWEVER, while the changes in the ordinances have inserted "guardian" for "owner" (in many cases, it was simply changed to "guardian/owner"), in ALL instances, the definition - whatever terminology has been used - defines the term to mean the same as owner. There has been no legal change to the animals as property concept. Example - San Jose: (PDF) http://www.sanjoseanimals.com/pdf/Or...79_-_Final.pdf

So the push is a whimper, and the momentum is dead.

As I said - it's an issue of semantics. The laws have not been changed though in a few places the wording has.

 

[boomerkitty]

Originally Posted by Willowy

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.

I don't understand why things must be taken to an extreme. Abuse is already outlawed, the line IS drawn. Unfortunately the money usually isn't there to enforce it.
I don't consider an elective surgery done under anesthesia with pain management to be abuse.
I have elected to have several fatty lipomas removed off of my old dogs. Lipomas are ugly yet harmless. One of my dogs had one that once they got into surgery found there was muscle involvement making the procedure more difficult. She had to have a drain put in and had at least 12 sutures. She had to be on pain meds for over a week.
Will I ever have another ugly lipoma removed from a dog? More than likely. It doesn't make me a butcher.
To be clear, I am not saying that I advocate declawing cats just for the heck of it. I feel that is is a last resort after other avenues are exhausted.
If declawing were illegal my grandmother (rip) would have had to give up her overly playful somewhat fractious cat. She couldn't physically afford to have a cat scratch her fragile skin and possibly cause infection. It was declaw or dump. What if that option wasn't there for her?

 

[addiebee]

I am firmly against declawing. Re: people don't dump declawed cats. Yeah, right. I see large numbers of declawed strays coming in to local ACs. I see cats that have been declawed but not ALTERED. I see all kinds of abusive, neglectful, stupid and ignorant behavior on the part of humans towards their pets.

I do not like the slam against people who work for the welfare of animals. I am one of them. I eat meat. I wear leather. I think hunting is appropriate to thin deer herds and if the hunter uses the meat, etc. and it is not just for sport. But I personally would never shoot an animal unless it was attacking me or mine.... And so on....

Please do not lump me in with PETA. I think they are stupid. And waste a lot of goodwill capital with some of their outlandish campaigns.

In the eyes of the law, I OWN my cats, but we all know what the truth is.

Animals are considered property but don't rate very high in the eyes of the law. In Michigan, it wasn't that long ago that the state established a felony animal cruelty charge. I would love to change the laws further at the state level.

I don't think an owner has the right to do whatever he or she pleases to an animal.

To BoomerKitty - here is an ironic twist to your argument that cats don't belong inside at our pleasure... etc. Did you know that is PETA's position? Truthfully... that we should never have domesticated cats and dogs and taken them into our homes. How funny is that....

This is the link to the PETA site that talks about it:
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

 

[ldg]

Where declaw is banned, it is legal when there is a medical necessity for it (for owner or cat in most instances).

No, the problem I have is the concept that declawing is OK to get a cat adopted. I believe potential owners/guardians/cat parents - whatever word one wants to use - should be educated as to the alternatives. If they are not willing to put in the work to train a cat to scratch appropriately or to use nail caps, then they are not fit people to have cats, IMO.

I see it as cruel and un-necessary when it's "just" about a home.

And, in fact, if someone like your grandmother wants to adopt a cat, there are many declawed kitties in shelters - a cat with its claws does not need to be declawed. There are plenty of already declawed cats to choose from.

 

[boomerkitty]

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?

Where did I say they should be allowed to freely procreate? My point was they would do fine on their own without human intervention. Nobody NEEDS to own a cat for any reason.
People do exhaust alternatives. Also, how can you judge a home based solely on whether or not they declaw their cat? Many, many cats have lived their entire lives indoors, declawed with a loving family. Conversely, just because someone is against declawing doesn't mean they will provide a proper environment for a pet. The person either has the disposable animal mindset or they don't.

Addressing someone's previous post about anthropomorphizing pets-
When you ascribe human attributes to animals it sets up unreasonable expectations in the owner's mind. "Fluffy is my furbaby, I don't understand why he bit me" "The dog pees on the rug to spite me". You hear this stuff over and over again when people are dumping their animals.
Yes, animals do think, but they don't think LIKE HUMANS. Cats and dogs do have basic emotions, but they cannot ascribe words to them nor do we know how they perceive them. Humans and cats/dogs DO share commonalities. They don't process thought the same.
To be an effective owner you have to learn how to think like your pet, not expect your pet to think like you. IMHO, anthropomorphizing is detrimental to the human/animal relationship.
I personally love my pets because they AREN'T human.

 

[boomerkitty]

Originally Posted by LDG

And, in fact, if someone like your grandmother wants to adopt a cat, there are many declawed kitties in shelters - a cat with its claws does not need to be declawed. There are plenty of already declawed cats to choose from.

My grandmother is DEAD! She adopted the cat when he was a kitten not knowing what his temperament would be like. She unlike many didn't "return" the cat like an unwanted sweater, she instead kept him for the duration of his life. Don't even tell me she was unfit. What an insulting implication.
As for shelter cats, finding a home is better than death. We can't warehouse them forever. To me THAT is cruel.

 

[ldg]

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

...Also, how can you judge a home based solely on whether or not they declaw their cat? Many, many cats have lived their entire lives indoors, declawed with a loving family. Conversely, just because someone is against declawing doesn't mean they will provide a proper environment for a pet. The person either has the disposable animal mindset or they don't....

I totally agree that either the person has the disposable animal mindset or not. But I believe that declawing is an issue of education. When educated about the declaw procedure and its risks, if the family still wants to declaw a cat, they should adopt one that has already been declawed and given up for adoption. There is simply no need to declaw another cat.

 

[ldg]

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

My grandmother is DEAD! She adopted the cat when he was a kitten not knowing what his temperament would be like. She unlike many didn't "return" the cat like an unwanted sweater, she instead kept him for the duration of his life. Don't even tell me she was unfit. What an insulting implication.
As for shelter cats, finding a home is better than death. We can't warehouse them forever. To me THAT is cruel.

I am so sorry your grandmother has passed.

I had no way to know that based on your post. And I was not accusing her of anything wrong - you held her up as an example. I responded. I also pointed out that even in places with bans, someone like your grandmother would legally be allowed to declaw her cat.... certainly no implication she was unfit. !! ...but if someone - let's change it to any age person - wants to adopt a cat but the claws present some kind of health risk, my point was that cats that have already been declawed are an option.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my post.

 

[ldg]

I went back to re-read your post. I now see the (rip). I'm sorry I didn't see it the first time.

 

[boomerkitty]

Originally Posted by AddieBee

To BoomerKitty - here is an ironic twist to your argument that cats don't belong inside at our pleasure... etc. Did you know that is PETA's position? Truthfully... that we should never have domesticated cats and dogs and taken them into our homes. How funny is that....

This is the link to the PETA site that talks about it:
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

How funny is it that you totally missed my point? I realize this is PETA's stance and I am against it.
I used this to make a point. Nobody needs to own a cat, nobody needs to declaw a cat. All of these things are done because we have CHOICES. We keep animals for our benefit, not theirs.I don't want government setting ownership perimeters above and beyond "don't neglect, starve, beat your animal, or fail to provide medical care". Other than that keep your laws away from my pets.

 

[boomerkitty]

Also, I didn't make any sweeping generalizations about people who are against declawing. I did not say "Hey, you, YOU are clearly in bed with PETA". I SAID that it is one more step in advancing the animal rights agenda. In the big picture it IS.
I previously stated that the AR people pick issues that are easy to get people on board with, like fur farming. I don't like fur farming.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sometimes we have to make strange bedfellows to accomplish a goal.

 

[otto]

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

I don't understand why things must be taken to an extreme. Abuse is already outlawed, the line IS drawn. Unfortunately the money usually isn't there to enforce it.
I don't consider an elective surgery done under anesthesia with pain management to be abuse.
I have elected to have several fatty lipomas removed off of my old dogs. Lipomas are ugly yet harmless. One of my dogs had one that once they got into surgery found there was muscle involvement making the procedure more difficult. She had to have a drain put in and had at least 12 sutures. She had to be on pain meds for over a week.
Will I ever have another ugly lipoma removed from a dog? More than likely. It doesn't make me a butcher.
To be clear, I am not saying that I advocate declawing cats just for the heck of it. I feel that is is a last resort after other avenues are exhausted.
If declawing were illegal my grandmother (rip) would have had to give up her overly playful somewhat fractious cat. She couldn't physically afford to have a cat scratch her fragile skin and possibly cause infection. It was declaw or dump. What if that option wasn't there for her?

Your grandma could have adopted a cat already declawed as there are many to chose from. Or are we talking about a cat already living there? Nail caps would have done just as well.

I cannot imagine doing such a thing to a cat I love and live with already. I look at Tolly Mazy and Jennie and there is absolutely nothing that would make me have their toes amputated. They look to me to care for them and protect them.

The horror of it happening to them makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[otto]

Originally Posted by LDG

I totally agree that either the person has the disposable animal mindset or not. But I believe that declawing is an issue of education. When educated about the declaw procedure and its risks, if the family still wants to declaw a cat, they should adopt one that has already been declawed and given up for adoption. There is simply no need to declaw another cat.

terrific post!

 

[otto]

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

How funny is it that you totally missed my point? I realize this is PETA's stance and I am against it.
I used this to make a point. Nobody needs to own a cat, nobody needs to declaw a cat. All of these things are done because we have CHOICES. We keep animals for our benefit, not theirs.I don't want government setting ownership perimeters above and beyond "don't neglect, starve, beat your animal, or fail to provide medical care". Other than that keep your laws away from my pets.

Can't buy into that. Humans domesticated animals thousands of years ago. My cats certainly are living a better life than if they lived "in the wild". Feral cats are sickly, full of disease and malnutrition and die young. they suffer, too. Cats are capable of forming deep emotional bonds with humans and it is bred in them to do so.

I could so easily interpret your last line to mean that you support declawing because you think it is a human right to mutilate an animal for their convenience. I know a lot of people feel that way. It's a shame, too.

But the ban on declaw is coming to this country, bit by bit, city by city. I hope and pray I live to see the day it is nationwide, like the other 26 civilized countries in the world.

 

[addiebee]

To BoomerKitty... but I AM working to move the agenda forward on protecting animals. Working tirelessly to improve conditions at a high-kill county facility. So does that make me one of those "crazy animal lover-tree hugger-do-gooder" as I have been labeled elsewhere???

Good. I am going to get a tee-shirt that says "crazy,meddling,animal loving, do-gooder --- and PROUD of it." Or "I am an animal lover... and I VOTE!"

Who is going to protect these animals if the law doesn't. Like the guy down south who tied his little brown dog to the back of his pickup truck and dragged her for a couple of miles b/c he was mad at her. He should go to prison as if he had done that to a person, IMO.

I know I am getting off topic and this has become a post for the IMO section here. Maybe mods should move this or close it b/c we are getting nowhere, except to inflame one another.

 

[sizzlecat]

I never even considered getting Jacques & Pierre declawed, even though I grew up with declawed cats. It's been my experience that without their claws, cats are more likely to use their teeth - and I'd rather be scratched than bitten ANY day.

And you know, they dont' scratch the furniture, they're *fine* - if I didn't tell people they still have their claws, they'd probably assume we had declawed.

And I'm one of the evil people that owns docked and cropped dogs, and doesn't spay/neuter until after their horomones have a few years to do their magic. But IMO, that's a whole other can of beans, and altering dogs is far more complicated from a pro/can point of view than in cats. There's NO reason to have an intact cat as a pet, and I respect the responsible cat breeders for putting up with intact cats in the first place! That is not something I could handle!

 

[allmycats]

Originally Posted by AddieBee

I am firmly against declawing. Re: people don't dump declawed cats. Yeah, right. I see large numbers of declawed strays coming in to local ACs. I see cats that have been declawed but not ALTERED. I see all kinds of abusive, neglectful, stupid and ignorant behavior on the part of humans towards their pets.

I do not like the slam against people who work for the welfare of animals. I am one of them. I eat meat. I wear leather. I think hunting is appropriate to thin deer herds and if the hunter uses the meat, etc. and it is not just for sport. But I personally would never shoot an animal unless it was attacking me or mine.... And so on....

Please do not lump me in with PETA. I think they are stupid. And waste a lot of goodwill capital with some of their outlandish campaigns.

In the eyes of the law, I OWN my cats, but we all know what the truth is.

Animals are considered property but don't rate very high in the eyes of the law. In Michigan, it wasn't that long ago that the state established a felony animal cruelty charge. I would love to change the laws further at the state level.

I don't think an owner has the right to do whatever he or she pleases to an animal.

To BoomerKitty - here is an ironic twist to your argument that cats don't belong inside at our pleasure... etc. Did you know that is PETA's position? Truthfully... that we should never have domesticated cats and dogs and taken them into our homes. How funny is that....

This is the link to the PETA site that talks about it:
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

It sounds like you and I are almost exactly on the same page, AddieBee! I don't see where anyone dissed animal welfarists at all..at least I HOPE not!!

 

[allmycats]

Originally Posted by BoomerKitty

Where did I say they should be allowed to freely procreate? My point was they would do fine on their own without human intervention. Nobody NEEDS to own a cat for any reason.
People do exhaust alternatives. Also, how can you judge a home based solely on whether or not they declaw their cat? Many, many cats have lived their entire lives indoors, declawed with a loving family. Conversely, just because someone is against declawing doesn't mean they will provide a proper environment for a pet. The person either has the disposable animal mindset or they don't.

Addressing someone's previous post about anthropomorphizing pets-
When you ascribe human attributes to animals it sets up unreasonable expectations in the owner's mind. "Fluffy is my furbaby, I don't understand why he bit me" "The dog pees on the rug to spite me". You hear this stuff over and over again when people are dumping their animals.
Yes, animals do think, but they don't think LIKE HUMANS. Cats and dogs do have basic emotions, but they cannot ascribe words to them nor do we know how they perceive them. Humans and cats/dogs DO share commonalities. They don't process thought the same.
To be an effective owner you have to learn how to think like your pet, not expect your pet to think like you. IMHO, anthropomorphizing is detrimental to the human/animal relationship.
I personally love my pets because they AREN'T human.

I really couldn't have said it all better myself! I HATE it when people say their animals do things just to spite them: ridiculous.