-
Too many ads? Join our community of cat lovers now to reduce ads by 90%! Click here to join for free!
Adopter wants to declaw - should I deny or approve?
- Thread starter lizita
- Start Date
- Status
Totally agree. It IS different dogs vs. cats re: s/n. Which is why I have no problem with the fact that my cat came prespayed (she would have been anyway). I too would never declaw, but I too have a docked breedOriginally Posted by 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!
Well that's good to know LDG, but rust never sleeps...........and one can never be TOO vigilant when it comes to AR agendas......I still urge caution to everyone NOT to make AR ideology mainstream else it WILL come up again stronger and become the norm............AR never quits............nor will I.
Have you rescued any animals? If you truly believe the statement you made, I have to ask - why would you ever rescue any if they don't need us and "we keep them for our benefit, not theirs." ???
Every single cat in this home would be dead had we not brought them in to live with us and cared for them. Instead, they're enjoying snoozing in the sun, playing, eating regular meals: they're well hydrated, they have no parasites, they are not ill, and they do not fear attacks from other cats or animals. Three of them would have died slow, agonizing deaths. How is this not to their benefit?
Further, and to the point of this thread, it's counter to your own argument that you'd rather see a cat declawed than dead. Why is it in a rescue situation in the first place, with people deciding whether it goes to a home where it gets declawed - or doesn't and gets killed?
Your political views aside, I'd appreciate it if you could explain why a shelter or rescuer should allow an adopter to declaw a cat in order to place it in a home, when there are declawed cats available for adoption? Even in a high kill shelter type of situation - shouldn't efforts at education as to the alternatives to declawing be made?
..Or is your position simply a political position on the rights of people, with no regard for the welfare of the cat?
...and I think it is imprudent to lump "AR agendas" into one! I believe the research I did on the "cat guardian" vs "cat owner" subject you asked me to look into points to the importance of A) understanding what you're talking about, B) not making generalizations, and C) not drawing conclusions based on incomplete information.
I don't even know what you mean when you say "I still urge caution to everyone NOT to make AR ideology mainstream else it WILL come up again stronger and become the norm..."
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 76
- Purraise
- 1
I do rescue, I do foster. I had 5 foster dogs last year and transported 3 to other rescue organizations. The fact remains that in the beginning animals were domesticated to *serve a human purpose.* It might have been hunting, or vermin control, or just companionship. They didn't come to us and say "I see you have a mouse problem, lemme take care of that for you". If they had not been taken in by humans there would be no need for rescue.
Cats and dogs DO form deep emotional bonds with people. That is the primary reason I choose to share my life with them. I do not however delude myself into thinking that any current dependence on humans wasn't CREATED by humans. They did not start out needing us. We used them and continue to. If we let them go they would eventually return to a wild state or become extinct.
I think I am realistic as to why I have animals and how they became what they are now. The other part of the equation is that in my household they are treated like kings and queens. We share everything and I have made them a part of my family. I have never experienced a problem with my cats scratching or behaving inappropriately. I never considered declawing them.
That does not mean that I would instantly villify someone who did declaw.
You can hardly compare a surgery done by a skilled veterinarian under anesthesia to some disgusting a$$hole dragging a dog to it's death. (I don't remember who said that)
Edited to add, there really IS an AR agenda. I get legislative updates almost every day. The agenda is the eventual elimination of all companion animals. They move one step at a time trying to write new laws that seem "reasonable". What they are doing is eroding our rights as humans to own animals.
Cats and dogs DO form deep emotional bonds with people. That is the primary reason I choose to share my life with them. I do not however delude myself into thinking that any current dependence on humans wasn't CREATED by humans. They did not start out needing us. We used them and continue to. If we let them go they would eventually return to a wild state or become extinct.
I think I am realistic as to why I have animals and how they became what they are now. The other part of the equation is that in my household they are treated like kings and queens. We share everything and I have made them a part of my family. I have never experienced a problem with my cats scratching or behaving inappropriately. I never considered declawing them.
That does not mean that I would instantly villify someone who did declaw.
You can hardly compare a surgery done by a skilled veterinarian under anesthesia to some disgusting a$$hole dragging a dog to it's death. (I don't remember who said that)
Edited to add, there really IS an AR agenda. I get legislative updates almost every day. The agenda is the eventual elimination of all companion animals. They move one step at a time trying to write new laws that seem "reasonable". What they are doing is eroding our rights as humans to own animals.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Messages
- 9,837
- Purraise
- 197
I mean no disrespect, but how does evolution have any bearing on a human's "right" to declaw a cat. The fact that humans domesticated animals is, was, a natural progression of evolution. The reason we have need of animal rescue is because of irresponsible humans, change of life circumstances, ignorance, abuse, intolerance, irresponsible breeding....well...the list goes on.
Human life evolved and learned to adapt their surroundings to them. It couldn't have not happened, so the argument does not apply.
THANK you Boomerkitty....that's right....there IS one ULTIMATE goal, one AGENDA and that is exactly as you stated. I hope I made sense to you at least re: cautioning the use of the very terms that the animal rights terrorists would like to impose on us; terms which DO CHANGE the meaning of our relationship with animals and DO endanger our ability to own pets. It's pretty clear to me.
One AR agenda? If you're correct that there is "an" AR agenda, then you are incorrect about what it is.
From http://www.animal-rights.com, FAQs:
COMPANION ANIMALS
Question 75: What about keeping pets?
In a perfect world, all of our efforts would go toward protecting the habitats of other species on the planet and we would be able to maintain a "hands off" approach in which we did not take other species into our family units, but allowed them to develop on their own in the wild. However, we are far from such a Utopia and as responsible humans must deal with the results of the domestication of animals. Since many animals domesticated to be pets have been bred but have no homes, most AR supporters see nothing wrong with having them as companion animals. As a matter of fact, the AR supporter may well provide homes for more unwanted companion animals than does the average person! Similarly, animals domesticated for agricultural purposes should be cared for.
However, animals in the wild should be left there and not brought into homes as companions. A cage in someone's house is an unnatural environment for an exotic bird, fish, or mammal. When the novelty wears off, wild pets usually end up at shelters, zoos, or research labs. Wild animals have the right to be treated with respect, and that includes leaving them in their natural surroundings.
LK
A loving relationship with a proper companion animal, a relationship that adequately provides for the animal's physical and psychological needs, is not at all inconsistent with the principles and advocacy of animal rights. Indeed, animal rights advocates have been leaders in drawing attention to some of the abuses and neglects of our "beloved" pets. Many of the taken for granted practices do need to be reexamined and changed. The questions that animal rights raises about companion animals are important questions:
* Can we maintain animals as companions and still properly address their needs? Obviously, we can't do this for all animals. For example, keeping birds in cages denies those creatures their capacity and inherent need to fly.
* Is manipulating companion animals for our needs in the the best interests of the nonhuman animal as well? Tail docking would thus be a practice to condemn in this regard.
* Might some of our taken-for-granted practices of pet keeping be really a form of exploitation? Animals in circuses or panhandlers using animals on the street to get money from passersby would arguably be cases of exploitation.
* Which attitudes of human caretakers are truly expressions of our respect and love towards these animals, and which might not be? Exotic breeding is one example of this kind of abuse, especially when the breeding results in animals that are at a greater risk for certain diseases or biological defects.
All that animal rights is really asking is that we consider more deeply and authentically the practice at hand and whether or not it truly meets the benchmark that BOTH the needs of human AND nonhuman animals be considered.
TA
The following points should be considered when selecting a companion animal.
Get a companion animal appropriate to your situation--don't keep a big dog in a flat or small garden. Don't get an animal that will be kept unnecessarily confined--birds, fish, etc. However, it is a good policy to try to keep cats inside as much as possible, especially at night, to protect both the cat and local wildlife. Get your dog or cat from a local pound or animal group; thousands of animals are destroyed each year by groups such as the RSPCA. The majority are animals who are lost or dumped. Vicious animals are not adopted out. By getting an animal from such a source you will be saving its life and reducing the reliance on breeders.
Finally, get your companion neutered. There is no behavioral or biological benefit from being fertile or from having a litter. And every pup or kitten that is produced will need to find a home.
JK
see also question 76
Question 76: What about spaying and neutering?
Ingrid Newkirk writes:
"What's happening to our best friends should never happen even to our worst enemies. With an estimated 80 to 100 million cats and dogs in this country already, 3,000 to 5,000 more puppies and kittens are born every hour in the United States--far more than can ever find good homes.
Unwanted animals are dumped at the local pound or abandoned in woods and on city streets, where they suffer from starvation, lack of shelter and veterinary care, and abuse. Most die from disease, starvation, and mistreatment, or, if they're lucky are 'put to sleep' forever at an animal shelter."
The point is that the practice of neutering and spaying prevents far more suffering and harm than it imposes on the neutered or spayed animals. The net harm is minimized.
******************************************
Note: emphasis added.
...care for companion animals as pets, keep cats indoors, spay/neuter your pets, be considerate of and attentive to their needs, rescue animals in need... Care for your farm animals... None of this "agenda" sounds in any way unreasonable to me.
Does it to you?
Either there is not one "animal rights agenda," or you are misinformed about just what the agenda is.
I'm sorry, but I find your facts sadly lacking. I have no idea where you got the idea that domestication of the cat began by being "taken in by humans," but archeologists do not draw that conclusion.
Evolution of the House Cat (at Scientific American)
I am not a subscriber, so I don't have access to the full article. But here is a synopsis available at digitaljournal.com: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273438
We did not seek out the first six cats we rescued. In fact, the very first one that showed up had quite a struggle turning my DH from a cat hater into a cat lover. But we certainly did not seek her out.
I will agree, however, that irresponsible humans are responsible for cats needing to be rescued.
...but once again, back to the point of the thread... I do not believe that someone who wants to adopt a cat is saving a life by having it declawed. The alternative to adopt an already declawed cat that needs a home exists. A search in remote areas such as Northern Wisconsin turns up quite a few options: http://www.petfinder.com/search/sear...declawedPets=1 so it clearly is not an option only available to people in urban areas.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 5,120
- Purraise
- 34
I see the same attitude, that people who have their cats declawed see it as an investment and as a result take care of their cat better than someone who didn't declaw, especially here in the south, and it really makes me SO SAD! Because, these people aren't bad people, they love their animal just as much as any of us on TCS, they are just mistaken and haven't really looked into what declawing is...It makes me so sad that people have mistakenly been doing this for so long now that it's by convention that cats get declawed, to some people, it's just the thing to do when you get a cat, they see it no differently than spaying and neutering and getting vaccinations
But as far as the OP, I believe she is asking the question because she wants the very best for the kitten, and getting it declawed isn't the best way of life for the kitten IMO, it's as simple as that.
As far as the rest of your beliefs, I'm sorry but I think it's unfortunate that you think hunting, in other words killing as a sport, is okay.
But, this isn't what the thread is about, so I'll just agree to disagree on that.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 76
- Purraise
- 1
I am sorry I missed out on the most current research, my bad. Taking them into our homes and caring for them is still a human choice. Maybe they should all be "living off of scraps outside human settlements?" IOW, eating my trash and hunting mice. That's what they chose to do. And really, if they weren't eating mice and scraps and caused problems for humans they would have been destroyed.
"Tomb scenes dating from 1540 BC showed that cats played a large part in everyday Egyptian life. They were revered for their hunting abilities, as they kept rodents away from granaries and food supplies, stopping the spread of disease, and they also killed deadly snakes like the asp.
Ancient Egyptians took their cats with them when they went hunting, very much like the British lords of past centuries took their hounds. Cats were trained to catch birds and fish in marshes like Spaniels and Retrievers. "
The largest, most powerful AR movements are PETA and HSUS. They are the ones that pay for lobbyists to forward their cause. Their cause is NOT animal welfare, it is the eventual elimination of all companion animals.
Here are some quotes from the lovely Ingrid Newkirk.
http://activistcash.com/biography_qu...ingrid-newkirk
“I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
— The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223
“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
— “Animal Rights 2002” convention, Jun 2002
And the lovely HSUS plus some other AR people.
http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/a...ightsquote.htm
"Tomb scenes dating from 1540 BC showed that cats played a large part in everyday Egyptian life. They were revered for their hunting abilities, as they kept rodents away from granaries and food supplies, stopping the spread of disease, and they also killed deadly snakes like the asp.
Ancient Egyptians took their cats with them when they went hunting, very much like the British lords of past centuries took their hounds. Cats were trained to catch birds and fish in marshes like Spaniels and Retrievers. "
The largest, most powerful AR movements are PETA and HSUS. They are the ones that pay for lobbyists to forward their cause. Their cause is NOT animal welfare, it is the eventual elimination of all companion animals.
Here are some quotes from the lovely Ingrid Newkirk.
http://activistcash.com/biography_qu...ingrid-newkirk
“I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
— The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223
“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
— “Animal Rights 2002” convention, Jun 2002
And the lovely HSUS plus some other AR people.
http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/a...ightsquote.htm
Thank you for clarifying those points. I was having a problem with the definitive statements and generalizations that weren't quite accurate.
And the idea that someone that wants to adopt a cat and declaw it - is it not better to provide some education and recommend that if they still want a cat that's been declawed they adopt one that's already been declawed? Or your position remains "better in a home" even at the expense of adopting out an already declawed kitty? Because it's not clear to me how it isn't basically just trading one life for the other.
And the idea that someone that wants to adopt a cat and declaw it - is it not better to provide some education and recommend that if they still want a cat that's been declawed they adopt one that's already been declawed? Or your position remains "better in a home" even at the expense of adopting out an already declawed kitty? Because it's not clear to me how it isn't basically just trading one life for the other.
- Status
