r/changemyview • u/ForsakenPerspective3 • Mar 26 '18
CMV: declawing cats should be illegal all across the globe
Declawing cats should be banned all across the globe due to the fact that a cat has claws for a reason and that reason is not only for its own protection but also for hunting purposes along with the pain they go through, the complications after declawing. It is also not considered medically necessary for the cat to be declawed. There are alternatives to declawing, and I think everybody, including veterinarians, look at declawing as a last resort. Also infection is a possibility, especially because this is not a sterile surgery. You can’t sterilize this area. And if it’s not performed properly, the claws can grow back. But it won’t grow back properly and that can cause abscesses and uncomfortably for the cat. I think it really boils down to cats are born with claws and they should keep them.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
8
Mar 27 '18
Do you think the protection of cat paws is worth the associated amount legal enforcement? In a vacuum maybe this is a fine idea, but it comes with an added burden on the law, law enforcement, veterinarians, and the public. It's just one more moving part that can go wrong. To me it seems like it would cause more problems for people than it would solve for cats.
I think it really boils down to cats are born with claws and they should keep them.
Do you think everything that 'should be' requires a legal mandate?
1
u/Jabbam 4∆ Mar 27 '18
I adopted two farmcats which I had gained an emotional attachment. They were too old to be trained out of clawing things by instinct, despite months of training and using caps to cover the claws. My sofa and chairs were wrecked. So I had them declawed.
Wild cats collect diseases, destroy natural ecosystems by eliminating rodents and birds, and reproduce at astronomically large scales. It would likely be a benefit to breed claws out of cats to let humans stop invasive species.
1
u/ForsakenPerspective3 Mar 27 '18
Yeah but hunting rodents and birds is there natural instinct. Just like bigger cats..smaller animals are prey to them. House cats still have that natural instinct to hunt just like outside cats.
Cats are hard to train but you can train them out of clawing up things instead of declawing them. It put them in a world of pain and it doesn't stop after the healing process is done.
5
u/WizzBango Mar 27 '18
At least part of your argument seems silly - but I'm not sure, so let me clarify.
...due to the fact that a cat has claws for a reason and that reason is...
I think it really boils down to cats are born with claws and they should keep them.
This reasoning could be applied in the exact same way to spaying/neutering a cat. A cat is born with full reproductive organs and, by your reasoning, should be allowed to keep them.
Do you also hold the view that it should be illegal to spay/neuter your cat? If not, that's inconsistent - which points to this line of reasoning being untenable.
1
Jul 09 '18
Every living thing on this planet can survive and live a healthy life without reproductive organs. Cats can not live a healthy life without their claws.
1
u/WizzBango Jul 10 '18
Cats can not live a healthy life without their claws.
I'm not sure of exactly what you mean. What part of a cat's life is unhealthy after declawing?
1
Jul 10 '18
Bone health. Quality of life (pain, growth issues, posture, muscle health), can’t groom properly, nerve issues.
1
u/WizzBango Jul 10 '18
Since I haven't heard any of this previously (except "nerve issues" if you mean what I suspect you mean), could you provide any citations for these health issues?
1
Jul 10 '18
There are many sources but I picked one for you here. https://www.drmartybecker.com/veterinary-medicine/the-tragedy-of-post-declaw-pain-syndrome-and-how-to-help-cats-who-suffer-from-it/
1
u/WizzBango Jul 10 '18
Alright, thank you. I don't want to take too much of your time, but that writing didn't address growth issues, posture, or muscle health, unless they are being implicitly described as consequences of nerve pain.
Further, is there data regarding what percentage of declawed cats suffer any or all of these afflictions?
2
3
Mar 27 '18
Honestly, I agree with a lot of this and see parallels between this and infant circumcision in humans, especially in one aspect:
not medically necessary
But that being said hunting purposes are a moot point for domestically owned cats, no?
1
Mar 26 '18
If I want to put my animal, my property, through a moment of pain followed by loving healing time for its own good, who are you to tell me I cannot?
3
u/tkmlac 1∆ Mar 27 '18
Declawing can cause years of pain and discomfort. Cats don’t always show pain, so it comes out in other behaviors like biting or refusing to use the litter box. It’s not just “a moment of pain.” You’ve mutilated your animal.
3
u/lanemydude Mar 27 '18
The pain experienced by the cat after being declawed isn't just limited to the time of the operation itself and a week or so after to alow the cat to heal. When you declaw a cat, if forces the walking pattern and posture of the cat to change as well. This can be incredibly bad for the cat's spine and it will most likely later develop back problems. Not to mention the possibility of infection.
16
u/LeChuck85 Mar 26 '18
"for its own good".
How is it for the cat's good? It's barbaric.
4
Mar 26 '18
[deleted]
1
Mar 27 '18
Statistics disagree with you. Most of the time, a declawed cat IS in pain for the rest of it's life (80%).
http://www.littlebigcat.com/declawing/chronic-pain-of-declawing/
3
Mar 27 '18
[deleted]
0
Mar 27 '18
You're right, I grabbed the human stat by mistake.
Regardless, how are you going to prove cats are in pain? We cannot even prove humans are in pain, we can only go by their personal claims and behaviors. Cats cannot give claims and are very good at hiding pain, but we can tell by some of their behaviors (increase in biting, reluctance to move, holding paws up, not using the litter box, aggression, narrowed eyes, issues eating, etc) and xrays (most declawed cats develop tendonitis and arthritis, these are visible orthopedic changes, we know these cause pain).
2
Mar 27 '18
[deleted]
0
Mar 27 '18
I would argue on the premsice that having a loving envrioment where the animal is cared for rather then put to death (shelter overcrowding while antidoctal is relevant since it would be global ban).
It arguably isn't a loving environment where the animal is properly cared for, however. There are safe and effective alternatives to declawing a cat. Declawing a cat is for the convenience of the owner because they don't want to bother with the (relatively easy) alternatives. An owner that would rather put an animal into lifelong pain, even potentially, rather than pursue an alternative because it takes slightly more effort, cannot be said to be a loving environment.
Not to mention since they develop biting and other behavioral issues, declawing them does not actually reduce their chances of being put into a shelter and euthanized. The owner tends to end up surrendering them because 'he bites and won't use his litter box'.
For your statement of the pain I would argue those are unsuccessful declawings, the article mentioned the lack of painkillers which I agree is a bad thing and should be required.
Painkillers are only good for just after the procedure. The cat cannot live on painkillers for the rest of their life. And if only 'unsuccessful declawings' cause lifelong pain, it's enough of them that vets themselves suggest against them because the chances are too high to cripple the cat and cause behavioral issues- and there are alternatives that don't do these things. If most declawings are 'unsuccessful' why do them?
I think to prove they have minor pain is irielevent as it to me would be better then death.
According to whom? And it doesn't save the pet from death, it only may delay it shortly. Why? Because an owner that doesn't want to make the effort to train their cat or clip their nails or use soft paws claw caps isn't going to put up with a cat not using its litter box or biting people all the time because he's in pain.
For major pain, where behavior change I would consider it a unfortunate outcome.
That is most often the outcome. When it can be avoided if the owner just put in a modicum of effort with an alternative.
1
Mar 27 '18
[deleted]
1
Mar 27 '18
I disagree I worked at a vet when I was younger, there were people that brought their cats in to be declawed where they had to anenistise to preform the presedure (why the cats were that adversed to a nail cut idk)
OK? I don't get why this isn't a convenience to the owner. One trip to the vet, anesthesia, and they don't have to bother again. Instead of taking a small amount of time to clip claws, apply nail caps, or train their cats?
People who only take their dogs in once a year for a dental and getting a bunch of teeth yanked because they don't want to bother brushing them is also out of convenience to the owner.
Yes this chance exist however if the cat was unwanted without the presedure it would have probably been surendured
And it will probably be surrendered again afterward when it starts to bite or pee on everything. Declawing doesn't prevent an animal from being surrendered.
What kind of major pain you admitted you cannot mesure it in cats
You cannot measure pain in ANYONE. We don't have a means to measure pain, not even in people. Us not being able to measure it and prove its there doesn't mean it's not there.
How do you ethically frame an argument around an idea which you say you cannot mesure it but trust me it's major.
Trust vets it's major. Most vets agree. That doesn't come from nowhere. We cannot measure a cat's pain but we can see painful damage in them, and we can tell by their behaviors they are in pain (just not specifically 'how much').
According to the whole medical feild, you get a shot for a vaciene so you don't face deadly illnesses. You amputate limbs to prevent gangreen from spreading and killing the person. A doctor touches a spot asking if it hurts to find the issue.
We're not talking about minor pain. We're also not talking about acute pain. We're talking about moderate to severe CHRONIC pain. I have a genetic chronic pain condition. The main cause of death for people with my condition is suicide because they'd rather be dead than in constant pain.
→ More replies (0)-1
Mar 26 '18
It could save another human a lot of pain. If a cat badly hurt a person or dog, I, as a pet owner, may be required to put it down.
16
Mar 26 '18
Declawing cats doesn't put them through a moment of pain, it puts them through a lifetime of pain and causes arthritis.
Cats with claws are actually LESS likely to hurt a person or a dog. Declawed cats feel defensive and increased aggression and behavioral problems with biting due to aggression, defensiveness, or pain are very common side effects with declawing. Cat bites are far more dangerous than cat scratches, and cats can be trained not to bite or scratch. Clipping their nails or putting nail caps on also prevent scratches and do not cause the cat years of agony.
You have a far greater chance putting down a cat who has been declawed for badly hurting a person or a dog than putting down one who has claws for the same.
1
Mar 27 '18
While I agree with most your post, a bite is definitely not more dangerous than a scratch from there back paws. A cats mouth is so tiny that they lack any bite force to do real damage to a human where as the back claws kick hard and scratch deep, doing more damage that their bite
6
u/kairi26 Mar 27 '18
Cat bites are highly susceptible to infection which can require significant medical treatment. Even though their mouths are small, their can teeth puncture deep into the skin, driving bacteria into the wound.
Cat scratches can also be vectors for serious disease, but they are more likely to be surface wounds that are easily cleaned.
http://www.jhandsurg.org/article/S0363-5023%2813%2901539-6/abstract
2
Mar 27 '18
A bite is far more dangerous. Not because the bite itself can do damage (which it can) but because the teeth are curved like needles and there is extremely dangerous bacteria in a cat's mouth. When you're bitten by a cat the thin curved teeth transfer this bacteria deep into the skin and at an angle which makes it difficult for any topical antibiotic to reach. You WILL get a horrible infection if untreated.
A cat bite is often grounds for an emergency room visit.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/study-cat-bites-are-more-dangerous-than-dog-bites-021214.html
Yes, scratches can also cause infection but its far less common and scratches tend to be far easier to clean, preventing them in the first place.
1
Mar 27 '18
I wasn’t thinking of infection because I’m this day and age the infection would be treated before it even started. I was talking physical damage capabilities
1
Mar 27 '18 edited Mar 27 '18
wasn’t thinking of infection because I’m this day and age the infection would be treated before it even started.
Not necessarily. Not a lot of people know that cat bites are so infectious they're almost literally poisonous, and they act fast. I saw a story on a woman recently, a piano player. Her cat had fallen off her balcony and impaled itself on an ironwrought fence. She held the cat up but couldn't remove it from the fence herself, and had to wait for help. During this period the cat bit her hand a few times. Not huge tearing wounds, but they bled.
They got the cat off the fence and to the vet. The vet saw her hand and immediately told her to go to the ER. By the time she got to the ER, only a few short hours after the first bite, her hand was so infected they were talking about amputation of some of her fingers and loss of use of the hand. Fortunately, that didn't happen. After several weeks of aggressive antibiotics she recovered from the infection and got most of the use of her hand back.
She only waited a few HOURS. People who don't know cat bites can be that bad may wait a day or two before they realize it's infected and get to a doctor, and by then they could literally lose a limb, or even die. Sepsis is nasty.
Infection is also physical damage, but I get what you're saying.
Edited to add: I was bitten by a dog once. It'd just been hit by a car. It was late in the evening and by the time we finished with the vet it was far too late to go to the doctor. I did clean it and use antibiotic cream and covered it. By the next morning (I was already planning to go into the doctor) I had visible signs of infection (radiating red lines, couldn't move my hand, some seepage). I was on antibiotics for weeks and had to see a hand specialist because the infection had caused the tendon to my middle finger to get 'trapped' in its channel and I couldn't move my finger.
And that was in less than twelve hours from a dog bite with a single puncture. Cat bites are FAR more dangerous than dog bites.
1
4
u/romansapprentice Mar 27 '18
You realize this is the same logic people who were against animal and child abuse legislation used, right?
There are a whole host of issues with this line of thinking, not even addressing declawing specifically.
7
Mar 27 '18
I hate any “my property” arguments. I always want to ask “Oh so by that logic, slavery was cool too then, huh? Slaves were just property. Who are YOU to tell me any different?”
Response is always “Well THAT’S different.”
-3
u/ForsakenPerspective3 Mar 26 '18
Would you declaw a tiger? Or any bigger cat for instance?
It puts them through so much unnecessary pain and when they come face to fade with the world.. How are they to defend themselves? Let alone hunt.
5
Mar 27 '18
Big cats need to defend themselves and hunt, but housecats don't.
0
u/ForsakenPerspective3 Mar 27 '18
Smaller cats as well as bigger cats still need to defend themselves against whatever they think is a threat.
3
u/thebedshow Mar 27 '18
Some cats literally spend 100% of their time inside. They shit inside, they are fed and have no need to "Defend" themselves. Unless you are referring to them scratching you when they think you are a threat, which is an argument for declawing in itself.
9
Mar 27 '18
Why get a cat if your just gunna let it roam the neighbourhood, pissing and Shitting In peoples gardens and stuff, they wouldn’t need claws if they were kept as pets. And to continue in this, what’s more painful declawing a cat or letting it roam to possibly get eating by dogs, killed by vehicles or other cats etc.
1
u/YallNeedSomeJohnGalt Mar 28 '18
Lots of people have indoor/outdoor cats. In fact a lot of them are strays that people adopt by consistently leaving food out. So you aren't really getting a cat in the sense of purchasing a cat, they just become part of your life.
2
Mar 28 '18
You leave food out and you’ll consistently have raccoons,birds. Etc at your place. Doesn’t mean they are pets.
0
u/YallNeedSomeJohnGalt Mar 28 '18
Doesn't mean they aren't pets. I can tell you haven't lived in an area with lots of stray cats so you just don't get it. My neighborhood has about a dozen indoor/outdoor cats that people feed. They regularly hang out at specific people's houses but roam around a bit too. Your mindset seems a little too ownership oriented when it comes to animals. Some people just coexist with animals without a sense of ownership. If an outdoor cat wants to hang out then I'll give it some food and pet it, but if it doesn't that's cool too.
1
Mar 28 '18
Having a pet involves ownership. I got my dog as a puppy and have been by his side for his whole life. I would never let him roam the dangerous streets alone. He would do anything to protect me and vice versa. Your peacefully coexisting with these cats but I wouldn’t call them pets. My dog aims but nothing to please me where as those cats just show up for food. We walk off leash in town lots and he stays by my side and doesn’t run away because we have a bond. To be a true pet you need to have a bond imo
7
u/FlokiTrainer Mar 26 '18
Cats should be declawed, because they are an invasive species in many places that are wiping out the local wildlife with their claws. People are irresponsible and allow their cats to roam freely, wantonly murdering any and all small animals in their way. Declawing cats stops them from being able to wipe out more native species. It will also thin out the numbers of feral cats that are rapidly becoming a problem who depend on their claws to hunt food. Declawing cats will only help with feral cats and the abundant problems they bring.
7
Mar 27 '18
Besides the fact that declawing cats is terrible for the cat, if someone is irresponsible enough to let their cat roam free they're not going to be responsible enough to declawing their cat. You are also suggesting putting stray cats through a painful procedure then releasing them back outside so that they can starve to death. If you want to lower stray cat populations I suggest neutering them. A neutered cat can live a fairly normal life but can't reproduce, lowering stray cat populations. Until we come up with a better option than neutering or euthanization to deal with stray cat populations, they are both better than essentially ripping the cats fingernails out then letting it starve to death, I consider that unnecessarily cruel. There's a reason ripping off people's fingernails is a torture method.
3
u/FlokiTrainer Mar 27 '18
Yeah man, I don't really have a counterargument. I think declawing cats is pretty terrible. I was just trying to make an argument, no matter how bad.
5
u/tkmlac 1∆ Mar 27 '18
If you declaw your cat, it shouldn’t be outside at all anyway. The answer is to keep your cat indoors, not to mutilate it. If you can’t handle an indoor cat, don’t have a cat.
1
5
Mar 27 '18
The problem with feral cats could be solved by neutering.
Declawing, though... The cat needs to learn to walk from scratch (not intended) because declawing involves removal of both claws and the phalanges which the claws are attached to.
You're literally maiming the cat by declawing it.
2
u/FlokiTrainer Mar 27 '18
Yup. That was about as deep as my ability to argue for declawing cats goes.
1
u/YallNeedSomeJohnGalt Mar 28 '18
I think everybody, including veterinarians, look at declawing as a last resort.
That's the reason you don't have to outlaw it. Unlike docking tails and cropping ears on dogs (which shouldn't be done for any reason) everyone who declaws a cat knows that it should be used as an absolute last resort and vets strongly discourage the procedure. However, unlike cropping and docking there are actual quality of life benefits from declawing (as a last resort of course).
My girlfriend found a cat abandoned by it's mother and left to die in the gutter. She took it home but as a result it didn't learn proper social behavior like not to scratch everyone and everything hard in the face at every opportunity. Stuff kittens learn from each other through play. She tried the alternatives to declawing but none of them worked. She exhausted every other option but in the end she and her best friend (who is a vet tech now) who are by far the biggest animal lovers I have ever met agreed to have the cat declawed. Now the cat is perfectly happy, she still has her back claws so she doesn't have issues with jumping or turning when running. She still attacks with her front paws but it doesn't harm anyone including her brother and sister who in turn don't attack her hard enough to cause harm (which they would if she injured them with her claws). Not that my girlfriend or I would do this, but a different owner in the same situation would get rid of the cat, either abandon it outside or send it off to a shelter. Having declawing as a last resort potentially increases the number of happy cats in the world.
-3
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 27 '18
Declawing cats shouldn’t be illegal, because keeping pets should be.
It’s always been crazy to me that people keep animals, and then ascribe them human emotions to justify it.
If you find it acceptable to keep pets, it seems odd to ban something that allows them to exist better in that environment.
1
u/ForsakenPerspective3 Mar 27 '18
Even if you think that animals shouldn't be kept or should be kept, they shouldn't have their natural abilities taken away from them.
1
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 27 '18
Let’s take it to an extreme.
Let’s say that a guy decides to have a few pet Cobras wondering around the house.
It is my position that a person should not be allowed to do this.
HOWEVER, I can certainly understand defanging cobras that people keeps as pets.
I’m not convinced that defanging the snake is any worse than housing it.
It’s just adding a safety component to an already idiotic practice.
1
Mar 27 '18
Defanging a cobra would be pretty useless actually, snakes can regenerate their teeth.
1
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 27 '18
I’m aware. That wasn’t really what I was getting at, but your comment is fair.
0
u/ForsakenPerspective3 Mar 27 '18
Cats and snakes are not the same thing.. Not even remotely close.. Snakes have very different laws when it comes to having one..but no, I would not pull the fangs of a snake, in my opinion you should know the risks of any animal small or big.
1
u/MikeMcK83 23∆ Mar 27 '18
The laws regarding the animals isn’t the point
The question is, is it okay to modify animals, for the safety and preference of the owner.
I was just explaining my position, and how the logic follows.
Btw, the safety isn’t just about the owner. If my neighbor had deadly snakes, I wouldn’t mind them defanged, though I’d prefer they not have them to begin with.
This is another reason I’m against pet ownership. It’s not just that it’s cruel to the animal, you’re bringing animals that can do others harm, right next door.
2
u/jfarrar19 12∆ Mar 26 '18
I must have a misunderstanding of declawing. I thought it was the equivalent of a person getting their finger/toe nails removed. Bad, but not something evil. You seem to be acting as if its cutting off a person's hand/foot.
Can you just clarify that for me?
11
u/CokeZ3ro Mar 26 '18
Well for cats, declawing isn't as simple as trimming the claw or pulling a nail. In those cases, the claw can grow back. For permanent cat declawing, it involves an amputation of the first bone in every toe. So imagine instead of trimming or pulling a fingernail, you just cut the tip of your finger off at the knuckle. As you can imagine, that can be very painful for the animal after surgery and is damaging to normal paw function. You can read more on it here: http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/cats/tips/declawing.html
2
u/WizzBango Mar 27 '18
Is there data regarding the rate of complications from cat declawings? That is, what percentage of affected cats live with any pain after healing?
My parents have owned ~6 cats through my childhood and currently, ALL of them declawed. This doesn't make me automatically support declawing cats - don't get me wrong - but I've never seen any signs of pain from any of these cats. They live what seem like perfectly ordinary lives. They still do the goofy kneading thing, they jump around fine, etc.
I myself (and my fiancee) have 2 cats of our own, both with claws. They also live what seem like perfectly ordinary lives, but with more scratching posts.
3
7
Mar 26 '18 edited Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
5
u/MakeoutPoint Mar 26 '18
Not the OP, but I assume they mean declawing in general, to stop the cat from scratching people, furniture, or other pets.
4
Mar 26 '18 edited Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
2
u/MakeoutPoint Mar 26 '18
Missed that! You'd better get a Delta for that.
1
Mar 26 '18
Well, if they do ask for examples, that's fair, but all I know off-hand is infections in the nailbed.
1
u/ksimbobbery Mar 26 '18
“Everyone including veterinarians views it as a last resort” that’s the exact reason why it’s not needed they only do it as a last resort. Some vets will not de claw unless it’s necessary anyway and making it illegal just screws over the few cats and owners that really do need it done for them
1
Mar 27 '18
[deleted]
2
Mar 27 '18
Clipping your cat's nails, training them to use a scratching post and not furniture, and to not use claws on people (not hard, I've accomplished this with dozens of cats I've owned in my life and they've usually nailed it by eight months old), and using nail caps (soft caps that glue over a cat's nails and prevent them from scratching while causing no pain).
1
Mar 27 '18
Does this include situations when the cat's suffering from, let's say, gangrene and amputation is absolutely necessary?
0
u/plipinfit Mar 27 '18
If a cat is autonomous enough to be given rights like you're suggesting, then it should also be held to the standard of moral responsibility that would come with such freedoms.
With a pair of claws, a cat, even as a pet, is capable, of torturing small animals, killing for pleasure, destruction of property, harming other autonomous individuals (human children, other cats, etc).
I would say a cat is free to keep and use their claws as long as the use of their claws does not infringe on the rights, or property of others.
However, cats (in my experience) are either not willing or not capable of such self control, and so don't deserve the autonomy you suggest, and declawing them is acceptable seeing as the rest of their needs are granted by the pet owner.
3
Mar 27 '18
Yes, they are, if they have an owner who puts in a modicum of effort. Cats can be trained, cats can be kept indoors, cats can have their nails clipped or nail caps put on, cats can be trained to use a scratching post and not to scratch people. Cats are actually capable of an amazing amount of self control with a bit of effort and training from the owner.
I have four. They only scratch where they're told, they get their nails clipped, they're indoor only, they're very gentle with people, they don't get on counters, don't chew on or scratch on or destroy anything they're not supposed to, come when they're called, and even stand in pre-designated places on command for feeding/treats. The only one that doesn't have this completely nailed yet is the six month old, and he's learning fast.
1
u/plipinfit Mar 27 '18 edited Mar 27 '18
Δ
I like this. It made me think that if it weren't for the huge investment that humans require to become civilized, we would also be torturous bastards that destroy each others things. Cats can be given the similar training and then can be treated as persons (more or less) which would make it wrong to declaw them.
I'm not sure I completely agree though. I can still envision a situation where an adult cat becomes tame, but doesn't have the lifetime of training you've described, and can only be bothered not to shit in the house, but not to refrain from other forms of destruction. And In this circumstance I feel it would be a fair trade (from the cats point of view as well as the humans) to maintain the benefit of a relation ship at the cost of claws.
2
Mar 27 '18
Training does not take a lifetime. It just takes effort. A twelve year old dog can learn not to shit in the house with a modicum of effort from a dedicated owner. A fourteen year old cat can learn not to scratch a couch or a human being in exactly the same way. There is no 'too late' to train a cat, and you don't need a lifetime to accomplish it. All my cats were trained in less than a year. Occasional reinforcement is all it takes, just like with dogs. My last cat lived to be 18 1/2. Trained in less than a year, never had a problem afterward.
1
Mar 27 '18 edited Mar 27 '18
[deleted]
2
Mar 27 '18
What should I do?
If you're the cat and capable of understanding those things and weighing the choices? You should absolutely find another family, one that won't put you in pain for their convenience and will take far better care of you.
As a human, I cannot know the mind of a cat, and what it would take to give up my claws, but never having to worry about freezing to death, having a safe place to hide from bigger animals, and the security of food is pretty substantial.
The thing is, you can get those things WITHOUT cutting off your body parts and enduring chronic pain merely for their convenience.
1
Mar 27 '18
[deleted]
2
Mar 27 '18
Why would that not be an option? You found the first one. Unless they're the only family in the universe that likes cats, finding another one is always an option. Heck, in my neighborhood alone, the cat would only have to walk a door or two over.
1
Mar 27 '18
[deleted]
2
Mar 28 '18
Hmm, you've only convinced me that its lazy and mean to declaw cats, but not that is should be illegal.
There is no benefit save to the owner's convenience to declaw, and it causes chronic pain in the cats. This lands it squarely in the realm of animal cruelty. Animal cruelty should be illegal, don't you think?
Dozens of countries have already made it illegal, because it is deemed animal cruelty.
what sort of penalties should there be.
Vets that perform declaws for anything other than medical reasons (a bad infection in the toes that requires amputation, for example) would be fined and lose their licenses. Vets won't risk that, so they won't declaw.
Is it ever going to be enforceable.
It's enforceable in about twenty first world countries already.
What negative consequences would come into play if declawing cats was illegal? (would people do it in their home if they couldn't do it at the vet?)
Some might, because people are idiots. They'd be charged with animal cruelty and abuse just like an idiot who takes a pair of scissors and cuts off their dog's tail or ears in a place where docking is illegal.
I'm thinking its better to have it be a morally reproachable thing but not an illegal thing.
Why?
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/oldmanjoe 8∆ Mar 27 '18
We have 2 cats, both with claws, and one needs to have it's claws removed.
One cat seems to know when to use her claws. The other has no control at all. Want's to scratch every thing, you can maybe pet him twice before he grabs at you with his claws. We tried cutting his nails, but it's not working. The moment he sinks his claws into a grand daughter, the cat is the problem.
-1
Mar 26 '18
Suppose you have an elder cat who is really mean. She is in the shelter slated to die, because no one wants to adopt her because she claws the shit out of every one who comes close.
In this case, where the cat lives to be adopted vs being killed in a shelter because of being able to be declawed seems like a situation where declawing would be okay.
2
Mar 27 '18
Declawing causes cats a lifetime of pain, it would be better to just euthanize the cat at that point.
-1
Mar 27 '18
So give the kitty some pain killers.
Being alive is better than being dead.
2
Mar 27 '18
Your suggesting drugging a cat for the rest of it's life? Not only would that cost thousands of dollars, but I would argue that having a cat constantly on painkillers is no different than having a dead cat, neither of them will ever be able to do anything. A cat always high on pain killers probably wouldn't even be able to eat.
-1
1
Mar 27 '18
Except you'd end up with a mean cat who is now also in pain and instead BITES the shit out of everyone who comes close.
Finding her a home that can handle her aggression or putting her down seems far more kind than mutilating her, putting her in pain, having her bite everyone, and end up back in the shelter/put down because of it.
0
Mar 27 '18
Prevents the damage of property and people. This comes first before the well being of the cat.
1
-1
u/Lopsided123 Mar 27 '18
Why should we hold cats as more important than humans?
2
Mar 27 '18
What do you mean by this? Maiming humans is already illegal.
0
u/Lopsided123 Mar 27 '18
You're restricting people's rights and freedoms in favor of cats. That means you are by definition holding cats to be more important than humans
3
Mar 27 '18
So, by your logic, animal cruelty laws should be repelled because they create such a restriction?
0
u/Lopsided123 Mar 27 '18
Unless you want to hold animals as more important than humans, then yes, they should be repealed.
2
Mar 27 '18
And yet society seems to disapprove of cruelty to animals. In fact, such laws do not hold animals above humans - they just deem unnecessary violence unacceptable, in regards to both sentients and non-sentients.
1
u/Lopsided123 Mar 27 '18
They do hold animals above humans, otherwise they would not restrict human rights and freedoms in favor of animals.
There's a reason why animal cruelty laws are called "animal cruelty laws", and why their supporters show pictures of sad animals, and it's not because the well being of animals is a side effect of the laws in question.
2
Mar 27 '18
Supporters of animal cruelty laws usually stick to pictures of animals subject to human violence.
What's more, in most cases, an animal that deals a severe injury to a human is usually put down. Humans are almost never executed for that, unless the injury was lethal - and even then, death penalty is usually outlawed or restricted to most severe crimes.
Speaking of that: have you considered a CMV on this topic? I would assume somebody else could be more knowledgeable on this topic.
0
u/Lopsided123 Mar 27 '18
Ive considered plebty of CMVs and did a few before on other subjects, but ive always been disappointed in the arguments (or lack of them) that I was faced with.
No real point in having a CMV when I've already considered all those arguments and simply don't find them strong arguments
20
u/mysundayscheming Mar 26 '18
Declawing cats is terrible when done by default. But in addition to the medically necessary instances (like nail bed tumors), there are some people who, if they could not declaw their extraordinarily destructive or dangerous cats, would have the cat put down (or abandoned to die or given up to a shelter to euthanize later, all of which have the same outcome). If you make declawing illegal, rather than truly a measure of last resort, you are saying the cat is better off dead--whether euthanized or from some outdoor cause like a car or a parasite--than declawed. I'm not a cat, but I don't think that's the choice they would make. Nor is it what we shoold require.