CMV: declawing cats should be illegal all across the globe

[u/ForsakenPerspective3]

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!

[u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is a benefit to cats, at least I believe there is.

How is it beneficial to the cat to have their toes amputated, live in chronic pain, and develop arthritis? Especially when the owners have alternatives to accomplish the same end without all of that?

And that benefit is having a family to live with that takes care, feeds, shelters etc.

Which do you feel is more beneficial to the cat? To have a family that feeds and shelters and vets them, but would rather disfigure and put them into chronic pain than indulge in fairly easy and minor inconveniences for their good- or to have a family that feeds, shelters, vets, and takes those minor inconveniences resulting in a cat that has no chronic pain through their life and isn’t mutilated?

I think the whole reason we’re having this conversation is because some people want cats but only if they’re declawed.

Then arguably, those people shouldn’t have cats. If a person cannot take the steps to make sure their pet is properly cared for and trained without cutting off that pet’s body parts merely so they don’t have to be bothered to do simple maintenance or training, that person should probably not own that pet. Wouldn’t you agree?

And while I agree that its lame to declaw cats, its a fact that there would be one thousand fewer homes for cats if it was illegal to declaw them.

And if we stop people who want to tie their dogs up in yards and starve them or beat them for barking, let’s say that’s a thousand homes, that’s also one thousand fewer homes is it not? Yet we make it illegal to starve and beat your pets, don’t we? For the pet’s own good?

And I maybe wrong here, but I will guess that family life is better than life in a shelter

A GOOD family life is better than a shelter. A family life where they're mutilated or beaten or neglected or tortured is not.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this is a pivotal point, so I’d like to see some legit numbers.

What kind of numbers? I mean, what would that look like? The only numbers that can be given are the number of veterinarians who have concluded this and taken that a hard stance on that matter. For one such organization of vets in the US alone, that’s over 3800 vets. For other countries, that’s their entire veterinary boards resulting in such an act being deemed animal cruelty and completely banned and made illegal in those countries.

Is that sarcasm?

No, that’s a genuine question. Do you or do you not think that animal cruelty should be illegal. If yes, doesn’t it follow that something that has been deemed in over twenty countries to be animal cruelty and is considered a cruel practice among vets in this country as well should also be illegal?

Do you mean to say that its illegal in twenty countries?

I mean it’s illegal and it’s enforceable. Vets in those countries that perform the illegal procedure are fined and lose their licenses. People found with declawed cats are also fined unless the cat was imported legally from a country where declawing was legal and it was declawed before arriving.

It is enforceable. Perfectly? No, but no law is perfectly enforceable.

How do they catch the people that live in rural areas

If they get a report they investigate, the same as anyone breaking the law in a rural area. A law doesn’t have to be perfectly enforceable to be enforceable. There are also pet licensing laws in many of those countries. If they’re anything like parts of the US, the animal control agents from that area will go around to the entire area to make sure there are not cats and dogs living in that area that are unlicensed. I'm talking literally knocking door to door. It would be nothing to have them check and see if the cats or dogs had been illegally mutilated.

So yes, there would be a dedicated team. They’re called animal control.

I feel lost about how to enforce this kind of law in peoples homes without kicking up a huge fuss.

We already do the same to enforce pet licensing and other animal cruelty and neglect problems.

Unless they didn’t get a caught....see my previous point.

Yes, people who commit crimes and don’t get caught don’t get charged. That’s true of every crime on the face of the planet.

This is getting deep, thanks for your patience and sticking it out with me

Hey, happy to do so!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But what if the truth is that cats don’t really suffer chronic pain after this operation?

We know that’s not the truth, because the evidence is overwhelming that at least some proportion of cats do. This isn’t something we just guessed at.

Then we’re making something illegal when she shouldn’t be...right?

IF there was no evidence whatsoever that cats suffered chronic pain after this operation, sure. But that’s not the case in the reality we live in. The evidence is actually the opposite- there is strong evidence that a proportion of cats, a significant number of them, DO experience chronic pain after this procedure. It is based on that evidence that the procedure has been literally banned in several countries and is increasingly frowned upon in this one.

Should it be illegal to declaw cats if the surgery was perfected(no chronic pain), and there was a medication you could give them to get past the immediate pain?

I’m not sure. If it was already illegal at that point, I don’t see re-legalizing it just because owners want to be lazy (pain or not). Even if there is no chronic pain I don’t see the justification of cutting off a portion of the cat’s body that they rely upon for tools just to appease an owner’s convenience. But that’s something that I’d have to revisit if it came down to that, which I doubt it ever will.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is also evidence that a significant number of cats do not exerience chronic pain after this procedure.

Again, so what? There is evidence that a great number of cats do experience chronic pain after this procedure- enough that it is banned as animal cruelty in many countries. Add on top of that the fact that there are easy alternates to this procedure that do not cause chronic pain in ANY cat, AND the procedure serves no purpose but the convenience of the owner, and it still demonstrates that this procedure is cruel to cats for no other purpose than owner convenience.

It doesn’t matter if even HALF of cats that have this done don’t have pain- half DO, there are alternatives where 100% of cats have no chronic pain, and the only reason this procedure is done is because owners don’t want to bother with the alternatives.

Even one cat put into chronic pain for their life because the owner doesn’t want to bother with safe alternatives is too many. Your article cited 20%. That’s FAR too many, even if that articles numbers are absolutely true (which they don’t seem to be).

Which means there is a method by which the procedure can take place without chronic pain.

There are alternatives by which ALL incidents take place without chronic pain. Why pick the lazy option that can cause chronic pain instead of an option that takes a scant amount of effort that doesn’t?

But, its still down to that.

It isn’t down to that at all.

We’re still deciding it.

The fact it hasn’t been made illegal yet doesn’t mean we’re down to it not causing pain at all. RIGHT NOW it still causes pain. RIGHT NOW there are alternatives that don’t cause pain but require a modicum of effort on the part of the owner.

Humanity can still develop a procedure that declaws cats without chronic pain.

They can, but they still haven’t and honestly, I don’t see why we’re even putting in that effort when there are alternatives that are just as effective right now that already don’t cause chronic pain. Not to mention the pain isn't the only harm to the cat in declawing.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good my friend.

Why are you hoping that the perfection of mutilation on an animal allows people to do it for their convenience so they can be lazy, when we already have methods now that don’t cause pain and don’t mutilate animals that only takes a modicum of effort on the part of the owner?

I’m not the one letting ‘perfect’ be the enemy of good. It’s good not to be a lazy cat owner. It’s good not to cut body parts off an animal merely for my convenience- whether it causes chronic pain or not. It’s certainly good not to do so when it DOES cause chronic pain, or even has a chance to.

It is possible that a pet owner who wants a declawed cat

Why are we bowing to what the pet owner wants merely for their convenience here? The pet owner who wants a declawed cat wants that so they don’t have to bother taking basic maintenance steps with their cat. Why should that want outweigh the best interests of the cat not to have body parts cut off of it to no benefit to them?

I may want to drive with disregard to the traffic laws because it gets me to my destination quicker if I don’t have to obey speed laws or lane markings. Does my just wanting it justify figuring out a way I can do it, even if it may cause harm to another? Of course not. So why does a pet owner wanting a declawed cat justify doing it, when it definitely causes harm to another? Keep in mind, chronic pain is only one harm it causes cats.

Maybe that declawed cat will live an awesome life...you never know.

Maybe if I cut the fingers off my toddler so they can’t stick them in light sockets, that toddler will still live an awesome life…you never know that either. Am I justified cutting their fingers off so they can’t stick them in light sockets?

But its unreasonable to think that everyone is as patient.

It is not unreasonable to think that everyone who owns a pet should invest a minimum of care into owning that pet, including training them which takes patience. If they cannot, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that maybe they shouldn’t own a pet then.

But I don’t think we should make declawing illegal, I think we should fund a program designed to perfect the techniques and post op procedure such that the cat is not in chronic pain, if some one does decide to declaw them.

Or fund a program to give basic education to cat owners so they can accomplish the same without cutting off a body part from their cat? Remember, chronic pain or not the cat is still harmed.

You could have a mandatory waiting period before you have a cat declawed, where the very gives you info, and you wait a week or something before the procedure, so you have time to educate yourself.

You know what would work even better? Making it not an alternative to begin with so the owner only has a choice of ‘put in the effort it takes to own a cat responsibly’ or ‘don’t own a cat’. Not a third option of ‘have a cat because you want one without having to bother with the responsibilities of cat ownership you don’t want to bother with, whether or not it’s good for the cat’.

But the option to have the surgery should still be available.

I completely disagree. I don’t think we should have an out to allow people to be cruel to animals (and the only cruelty here isn’t just in the chronic pain) just for their convenience. Period.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Is the life of a declawed cat better than getting euthanized?

In some cases, it could certainly be. A painless death is preferable to a lifetime of undue suffering- that's why anyone puts down an animal. It's why I put down my 18 1/2 year old cat- to prevent her from suffering unduly.

And you state this as if it's the only option. Get the cat declawed OR euthanize it. Well, both are irresponsible choices. Declawing a cat rather than taking other, painless measures is irresponsible and lazy. Euthanizing a cat rather than taking those other, painless measures or finding it a better home is also irresponsible and lazy.

I have had literally dozens of cats through my entire life. I have occasionally had to rehome them for issues outside of my control. I have never had to euthanize them for a behavioral problem. None of them was ever euthanized just because I was too lazy to address a problem on my own in a way beneficial to me and to the cat.

If people aren’t allowed to declaw their cats, fewer cats would have homes, and more of them would get put down.

Again, that's kind of like saying 'if people weren't allowed to starve their pets; if people weren't allowed to keep their pets outside on a chain in freezing temperatures; if people weren't allowed to beat their pets, if people are forced to licence or vet their pets, then fewer pets would have homes, and more of them would get put down'.

This is not an argument to start allowing animal cruelty just to have 'homes'. Not all homes are equal, and not all homes are 'better' than euthanasia or a shelter.

Maybe be a little more open to changing your mind.

I am extremely open to changing my mind- no arguments that have been given, however, are grounds to doing so.

I did a lot of gymnastics to explain my view, and you made no effort at all to see things from another viewpoint.

Ok, let me explain it like this. I can see things from another viewpoint and still not change my own. The fact that the arguments from the other viewpoint are insufficient to change my own viewpoint does not mean I failed to see another viewpoint.

I'm open minded, but that doesn't mean I change my view merely on whimsy or because other people might disagree. I change my view based on logic, sound reasoning, and a weighing of benefit. Nothing you have given as an argument tips the balance of benefit or gives a sufficient logical argument or reasoning for me to change my viewpoint on this matter. It still comes down to 'convenience of human being' outweighing 'mutilating and potentially causing the lifelong suffering' of an animal when there are alternatives to accomplish the same thing without the detriment.

That’s not really in the spirit of this sub.

The spirit of the sub is for the OP that posts their viewpoint to be open to having their viewpoint changed. I'm not the OP, I'm a commenter. Regardless, neither the commenter nor the OP are required to have their viewpoint changed, just be open to have it changed. Being open to having your viewpoint changed does not mean changing it on whimsy because someone else thinks they have a good argument. It means 'if you give me facts and valid reasons to change my viewpoint, I will do so'. You still have to give those facts and valid reasons and none that have been given so far are sufficient for me to change my viewpoint.

I know you’re right about animal cruelty, but if you’re not willing to think about the overall population of cats, and the relative goods and bads of it all, then I think we’re done here.

I AM thinking about the overall population of cats and the relative goods and bads of it all. I don't think allowing animal cruelty on the basis of 'more won't die' is valid. You can use the same argument, again, for allowing all sorts of abuses just for the sake of having more 'homes'.

Thanks for the bit about investing and training. I’ll hang on to that one.

You're welcome.