USA Cities Must Ban Declawing

USA Cities Must Ban Declawing -- In the following linked article I urged people to oppose California Bill SB 762. Well, as I thought it, has been passed by the Californian government and signed off by the governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It passed the Assembly recently on a 59-6 vote. Earlier it passed the Senate, 31-6. This is a pretty conclusive vote for the bill. The problem is that the politicians are rather short sighted. On the face of it Bill SB 762 looked OK. The idea was to ensure uniformity of legislation and regulations concerning the professions throughout California and to stop local legislators such as the wise men and women of West Hollywood enacting laws that regulated a profession at a local level, in this case veterinarians who wantonly declaw in breach of ethics and against the interests of the patient.

But the successful ban in West Hollywood meant that there were different rules across the state. The important point that the politicians who passed Bill SB 762 didn't recognise is that the ban at West Hollywood is the right law.

Bill SB 762 (is it now an Act, I am not sure) comes into force on January 1st 2010. This allows a shortish window of opportunity for any other city or municipality to enact new legislation along the lines of West Hollywood's ban. One such city is San Francisco who have shown an intention to do this. The San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare recommended to the Board of Supervisors that they should enact legislation that bans declawing in the city for non-therapeutic purposes.

To an outsider like me it is shocking and bizarre that these local bans are so slow to be enacted. It is obvious that declawing should be banned when it is for the convenience of the cat's owner and when the veterinarian associations fail to act to curb their veterinarians. How complicated is it?

Anyway, all cities who have been thinking of banning declawing for non-therapeutic purposes need to get their skates on. Over to you guys....USA Cities Must Ban Declawing in my opinion.

See: Declawing Cats for lots of links and comment on this provocative subject.



From USA Cities Must Ban Declawing to Home Page

Oppose California Bill SB 762

Before I start and ask people to oppose California Bill SB 762, let me say that I am an outsider. I am not American. That has benefits and detriments. On the upside it means I am more likely to see the bigger picture, to stand back, to not be indoctrinated by tens of years of culture that considers that the declawing of cats is acceptable. And there are many millions of people in America who profess to love their cats and who believe that they do love their cats and yet assault them viciously in requesting that a veterinarian declaw them for non-therapeutic reasons.

On the downside it means I have to charter my way through a minefield of legislation that looks a bit odd. Why oppose California Bill SB 762?

The objective (or at least one of the objectives) of SB 762 seems to be to ensure uniform statewide governance of licensed professions. That is to prohibit cities or counties from restricting procedures that are licensed by the State Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). In relation to the declawing of cats this bill seems to refer to (and be a reaction to) the West Hollywood declawing ban that was at first successfully challenged by the California Veterinary Medical Association; the decision then being overturn on appeal by the Court of Appeal who upheld the anti-declaw ordinance, which is the only one of its kind in the nation.

On the face of it, California Bill SB 762 would seem to be concerned with blocking any more cities and municipalities who are thinking about doing the same thing as the now famous West Hollywood. Yet:

It is important to note that this bill does not seek to undo the West Hollywood ordinance and includes a grandfathering clause that preserves the City of West Hollywood's 2003 anti-declawing ordinance. (quoted from info.sen.ca.gov website)

However, the bill would seem to be about preventing similar actions. Supporters of California Bill SB 762 say that:

....without legislation ensuring uniform statewide governance of licensed professions, professional standards will be dissimilar and discordant. (quoted from info.sen.ca.gov website)

The last argument, in my opinion completely misses the point. It is a very narrow argument. Any decision should be based on what is correct and proper. It is patently obvious that declawing is wrong and no matter how many weasel words or smoke screens that are used by veterinarians, it is right and proper to ban it through legislation at any level if the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) don't do their job and at least regulate the practice far more closely (or better still plain ban it).

On that sound footing it is argued that it is state legislation that is "discordant" and out of step with the city legislators who reflect the proper course of action. In short, the West Hollywood legislation is correct and the state should follow. This may sound like an extravagant thing to say but in the USA, the city of West Hollywood is at the forefront of much needed change. It is the beginning of change and that is why they are currently alone. If the state followed West Hollywood, there would be complete uniformity and the objective of this proposed legislation would be met. If state legislation tries to prevent cities doing the proper thing it will only cause future litigation and problems. And I call upon all those cities who are or have considered passing ordinances banning declawing to go ahead as this might disrupt things.

It seems that the only way to ban declawing (if the WVMA and other associations won't and it would be far easier if they did) is to do it piecemeal in small "bite sized pieces" and thereby chip away at it. This is because the bigger legislators are unprepared to do it probably because at the state level there is too many people pulling in different directions and it becomes unmanageable.

Another point of note is that not all vets are affiliated to the AVMA and that could lead to discordant regulations. Legislation would provide an umbrella of rules to ensure a uniform approach.

Opponents of California Bill SB 762 say:

...that local jurisdictions have the right to make specific decisions relating to professions and that the appellate court's decision should be upheld.

Yes, because it is the only way to get the job done of stopping the legalised yet criminal assault on innocent cat companions by unethical veterinarians who routinely recommend it against the interests of the patient, the cat and in breach of their oath. More to come. Any errors in this? Please leave a comment and it will be corrected.

Oppose California Bill SB 762 - See:

• American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat
• AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats
  

From Oppose California Bill SB 762 to Home Page

Tenectomy or tendonectomy on Cats

Performing a tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats is a cynical way for American veterinarians to wriggle around the impossible moral difficulties that they face when carrying out the brutal and unnecessary declawing procedure.

Declawing is big in America. It is simply big business (about $20 billion on my estimate) and it is that which drives vets to do it. But despite all the feeble attempts to justify what is cosmetic surgery for the benefit of the cat owner (and to dress it up otherwise is nonsense) declawing is a problem for vets. Some even refuse to do it! I am shocked!

On the basis that declawing does present moral questions for a small percentage of American veterinarians they had to devise an alternative that seemed more acceptable to the public. A procedure that repackaged the process but which still brought in those precious dollars.

And they came up with the procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats (it can be performed on other animals). This procedure is defined as "the surgical resection of part of a tendon". Notice the jargon of the word, "resection". Resection means, "the partial or complete removal of an organ or other bodily structure". In other words the procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats is the cutting and removal of a part of the tendon of the cat which in turn is part of the mechanism that controls the extension (flexing) of the cat's claws.

In removing this piece of the cat's anatomy the cat's claws cannot be retracted (drawn in) and are rendered almost useless, as I understand it. The after effects are as high as for declawing (although this is still work in progress it would seem). Incidentally, the level of short-term after surgery complications for declawing is not as low as some vets make out. They can be as high as 50% and in the long term as high as 20% "Feline Onychectomy at a Teaching Institution: A Retrospective Study of 163 Cases," Veterinary Surgery, Vol. 23, no. 4 (July-August 1994): 274-280). My thanks to this website: catclinicofnorman.com.

The procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats is becoming increasingly common. The cat owner will need to trim and maintain the cat's claws regularly after the operation. I wonder whether they do bearing in mind that a request to carry out this procedure is likely to come from people who are not that inclined to devote a lot of time to their cat? This may result in more health problems for the cat.

As the procedure is newish there have been no long term analysis as to its effects on cat welfare. On that basis alone it should not be carried out or recommended by veterinarians and in any case it is the same story. A wholly unnecessary surgical procedure that is prohibited under the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (note: the procedure is not referred to by name as it is new but is still covered by the convention under Art 10 as it is non-curative and totally unnecessary in respect of benefit to the animal).

Article 10 – Surgical operations

1. Surgical operations for the purpose of modifying the appearance of a pet animal or for other non-curative purposes shall be prohibited and, in particular:
1. the docking of tails;
2. the cropping of ears;
3. devocalisation;
4. declawing and defanging;
2. Exceptions to these prohibitions shall be permitted only:
1. if a veterinarian considers non-curative procedures necessary either for veterinary medical reasons or for the benefit of any particular animal;
2. to prevent reproduction.

This procedure simply adds to the problem of the unethical approach of American veterinarians in regards to their propensity to conduct non-curative operations on cat companions.

Further reading:

• American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat
• AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats
  

From Tenectomy or tendonectomy on Cats to Home Page

AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats

The AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats is shameful and deplorable. It is criminality transformed into normality through deep seated denial and deceit. It is made all the worse by the fact that this association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, professes to uphold the highest standards of professional behavior. The criminality is perpetrated by the pillars of American society, the ever reliable, homely and charming veterinary surgeon. To quote the AVMA, "Veterinarians are members of a scholarly profession who have earned academic degrees from comprehensive universities or similar educational institutions." On their AVMATV webpage they have a logo that reads:

---

Please note: this is a duplicate of another identical post. This post was made by some computer glitch! I have no idea what happened. Sorry if any confusion has or will be caused. I can't delete it as Google finds them both depending on the search terms.

---

Yes, I agree. It is a lot more than we think. In respect of declawing of cats it is criminal behavior dressed up as a professional health service. There is little doubt that it is a crime under animal cruelty laws but no one is every prosecuted. It is also a lot more than the vets think because a lot of them as mentioned seem to be in denial at what they are doing. This denial is a creation of years and years of subtle psychology that the vets and organisers of the AVMA have practiced on themselves and employees of veterinary surgeries. Even the name of the procedure is a deception: "declawing", when it is, in fact, the removal of the tips of all the fingers of cat. New laser surgery is probably sold as being "almost painless" with "quick recovery times". "Your cat will up on his feet in no time" the cosy vet says. Always denying that the whole thing is quite unnecessary and shockingly cruel from the patient's point of view. I sometimes wonder if the vet thinks the patient, is the client. The client being the person who comes in and says, "I need a declaw, I can pop in next Tuesday". Vet's answer, "That's fine Mrs Doe, have a nice day..."

The language of the veterinary surgeon is designed to disengage the veterinarian and the staff from what is a grievous assault on an innocent animal that looks to us and depends on us for its care and wellbeing. The procedure is described as follows:

"The claw is extended by pushing up under the footpad or by grasping it with Allis tissue forceps. A scalpel blade is used to sharply dissect between the second and third phalanx over the top of the ungual crest. The distal interphalangeal joint is disarticulated, and the deep digital flexor tendon is incised. . . . Both techniques effectively remove the entire third phalanx" [this means the amputation of the distal phalanx or part of the toe]

In plain language this procedure is:

The removal, with a knife, of the top joint from all the toes of the cat.

The language of denial and disengagement does not stop there. It is everywhere in the American Veterinarian's literature. Take the AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats. The following heads the page on the AVMA website:

Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when its clawing presents a zoonotic risk for its owner(s) {revised 04/2009}

This clause, as I said is the header clause and the clause that underpins the whole policy actively encourages declawing when it should do the opposite. It is an attempt to ease the guilt of the AVMA by pretending that they have a policy on declawing. These are my concerns with this defective clause:

The first sentence of the clause says that if a cat (for example) damages a piece of furniture and the owner can't stop it happening, the cat can then be declawed. That is what it says. If the owner comes to a vet and says, "Mr Vet, I've tried to stop my cat scratching my new furniture but it hasn't worked, please declaw him". The vet can under this AVMA policy on declawing cats, say, "Yes, fine". It is an open invitation to cat owners who do not know better to get their way against the interests of the cat. When people adopt a cat, they know there will be some damage. So, declawing will be on the cards before the cat gets home. It is nothing less than an open invitation to declaw. It should be a barrier. In fact, it blatantly contradicts the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics of the AVMA on the same website (see my posting on this: American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat), which states, "Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient....". The AVMA policy on declawing pursuant to this statement considers first the client (the cat's owner).

As to the second sentence this refers to the transmission of disease from cat to human (zoonotic diseases). All cats present this risk but it is an extremely tiny risk. So under the AVMA policy on declawing cats all and any cat can be declawed. Once again it presents an open door to an assault on the cat. If people are worried about their furniture or the extremely rare risk of contracting a zoonotic disease they should not keep cats. We should not customise the anatomy of cats. We do not customise children beause they bring colds back from school or damage the furniture. A further point; a cat's teeth can transmit zoonotic disease: Declawing, why not detoothing as well?

Another, perhaps overlooked, point about the above clause is that is refers to, "domestic cats". It is clearly open season on tame wild cats and there are many Servals, for instance, that are automatically declawed because they are a big cat. Some escape their unsuitable conditions and are killed because they have no defense. See Serval Cat Escapes.

If this leading clause were to be written in compliance with the American Veterinary Medical Associations code of ethics it might read like this:

"Declawing of all cats must not be carried out unless it is under the most serious and unlikiest of conditions and where it is exclusively in the best interests of the cat's health and wellbeing. It is considered by the board of the AVMA that these circumstances will only very rarely apply. The reasons for carrying out the operation must comply with the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics.

That clause is in the best interests of the patient. As I mention on the Americans are Unethical Towards the Cat posting, the reason why the AVMA has drafted such an open clause is to present to the world "concern" while actually promoting declawing. The clause contains "weasel words". These are words or phrases that are intended to say one thing while the true intention is to do or promote something else. Politicans use them frequently.

The AVMA policy on declawing cats is an example of American short-term thinking. I mean policies that seek to create immediate benefit at any cost while disregarding the future consequences. It is a reflection of the consumer society. However, far greater financial benefit would be accrued in the long term if a truly ethical approach was adopted by the AVMA as it would encourage people to see a vet who currently resist because of cost and distrust. It would also mean that cats were treated earlier. Many cats are probably suffering indirectly through the AVMA's policy as people stay away from veterinarian's surgeries.

The AVMA policy on declawing cats should be redrafted and while that was happening the code of ethics should be properly policed as numerous vets in its association are flagrantly in breach of its policies (see this website for example: The Declaw Hall of Shame). The AVMA must lead in the interests of the cat and all animals as that is the underlying reason for its existence.

---

Please Note: I like America and Americans but strongly dislike the acceptance by many Americans of the declawing of cats.

Update: I have been reliably told that the AVMA has no authority over the veterinarians in their association. Can this be true? And if so what it the point of the AVMA? How are rogue vets dealt with?

---

• From AVMA Policy of Declawing Cats to Cat Health Problems
• To Home Page (main site)
• To Home Page (this site)
• See Declawing Cats (main site)

AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats

The AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats is shameful and deplorable. It is criminality transformed into normality through deep seated denial and deceit. It is made all the worse by the fact that this association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, profess to uphold the highest standards of professional behavior. The criminality is perpetrated by the pillars of American society, the ever reliable, homely and charming veterinary surgeon. To quote the AVMA, "Veterinarians are members of a scholarly profession who have earned academic degrees from comprehensive universities or similar educational institutions." On their AVMATV webpage they have a logo that reads:

Yes, I agree. It is a lot more than we think. In respect of declawing of cats it is criminal behavior dressed up as a professional health service. It is also a lot more than you (the vets) think because a lot of them, as mentioned, seem to be in denial at what they are doing. This denial is a creation of years and years of subtle psychology that the vets and organisers of the AVMA have practiced on themselves and employees of veterinary surgeries. Even the name of the procedure is a deception: "declawing", when it is, in fact, the removal of the tips of all the fingers of the cat (usually the front). New laser surgery is probably sold as being "almost painless" with "quick recovery times". "Your cat will be up on his feet in no time" the cosy vet says. Always denying that the whole thing is quite unnecessary (when done for the usual non-therapeutic reasons) and shockingly cruel from the patient's point of view. I sometimes wonder if the vet thinks the patient is the client. The client being the person who comes in and says, "I need a declaw, I can pop in next Tuesday". Vet's answer, "That's fine Mrs Doe, have a nice day..."

---

See an umbrella page on cat declawing where there are more links etc.: Declawing Cats

---

The language of the veterinary surgeon is designed to disengage the veterinarian and the staff from what is a grievous assault on an innocent animal that looks to us and depends on us for its care and well being. The procedure is described as follows:

"The claw is extended by pushing up under the footpad or by grasping it with Allis tissue forceps. A scalpel blade is used to sharply dissect between the second and third phalanx over the top of the ungual crest. The distal interphalangeal joint is disarticulated, and the deep digital flexor tendon is incised.. . . Both techniques effectively remove the entire third phalanx" [this means the amputation of the distal phalanx or part of the toe]

In plain language this procedure is:

The removal, with a knife, of the top joint from all the toes of the cat.

The language of denial and disengagement does not stop there. It is everywhere in the American Veterinarian's literature. Take the AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats. The following heads the page on the AVMA website:

Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when its clawing presents a zoonotic risk for its owner(s) {revised 04/2009}

This clause, as I said is the header clause and the clause that underpines the whole policy actively encourages declawing when it should do the opposite. It is an attempt to ease the guilt of the AVMA by pretending that they have a policy on declawing. These are my concerns with this defective clause:

The first sentence of the clause says that if a cat, for exampe, damages a piece of furniture and the owner can't stop it, the cat can be declawed. If the owner comes to a vet and says, "Mr Vet, I've tried to stop my cat scratching my new furniture but it hasn't worked, please declaw him". The vet can under this AVMA policy on declawing cats, say, "Yes, fine". It is an open invitation to cat owners who do not know better to get their way against the interests of the cat. When people adopt a cat they know there will be some damage. So declawing will be on the cards before the cat gets home. It is nothing less than an open invitation to declaw. It should be a barrier. In fact it blatantly contradicts the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics of the AVMA on the same website (see my posting on this: American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat), which states, "Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient....". The AVMA policy on declawing persuant to this statment considers first the client (the cat's owner).

As to the second sentence this refers to the transmission of disease from cat to human (zoonotic diseases). All cats present this exceptionally slight risk. But once again it opens the door wide to mutilation because under the AVMA policy on declawing cats all and any cat can be declawed. Once again it presents an open door to an assault on the cat. If people are worried about their furniture or the extremely rare risk of contracting a zoonotic disease they should not keep cats. We should not customise the anatomy of cats. We do not customise children beause they bring colds back from school or damage the furniture. A further point; a cat's teeth can transmit zoonotic disease: Declawing, why not detoothing as well?

Another, perhaps overlooked, point about the above clause is that is refers to, "domestic cats". It is clearly open season on tame wild cats and there are many Servals, for instance, that are automatically declawed because they are a big cat. Some escape their unsuitable conditions and are killed because they have no defense. See Serval Cat Escapes.

If this leading clause were to be written in compliance with the American Veterinary Medical Associations code of ethics it might read like this:

"Declawing of all cats must not be carried out unless it is under the most serious and unlikiest of conditions and where it is exclusively in the best interests of the cat's health and wellbeing. It is considered by the board of the AVMA that these circumstances will only very rarely apply. The reasons for carrying out the operation must comply with the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics.

That clause is in the best interests of the patient. As I mention on the Americans are Unethical Towards the Cat posting, the reason why the AVMA has drafted such an open clause is to present to the world "concern" while actually promoting declawing. The clause contains "weasel words". These are words or phrases that are intended to say one thing while the true intention is to do or promote something else. Politicans use them frequently.

The AVMA policy on declawing cats is an example of American short term thinking. I mean policies that seek to create immediate benefit at any cost while disregarding the future consequences. It is a reflection of the consumer society. However, far greater financial benefit would be accrued in the long term if a truly ethical approach was adopted by the AVMA as it would encourage people to see a vet who currently resist seeing a vet because of the cost and distrust. It would also mean that cats were treated earlier. Many cats are probably suffering indirectly through the AVMA's policy as people stay away from veterinarian's surgeries to avoid getting into the clutches of a financially greedy vet and any veterianrian who declaws cats for non-therapeutic reasons is greedy.

The AVMA policy on declawing cats should be redrafted and while that was happening the code of ethics should be properly policed as numerous vets in its association are flagrantly in breach of its policies (see this website for example: The Declaw Hall of Shame). The AVMA must lead in the interests of the cat and all animals as that is the underlying reason for its existence. It is time that the AVMA served the interests of the cat not their wallet nor the callous cat owner requesting declawing.



Further valuable reading.

• Declawing Cats - lots of links
  
• From AVMA Policy of Declawing Cats to Cat Health Problems
• To Home Page (main site)
• To Home Page (this site)
• http://clawsforever.blogspot.com - a blog about declawing
• http://clawsforever.ning.com/ - The Claws Connection
  
• http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Savingcatsclaws/- Savingcatsclaws · Troops Taking Action To Save Cats' Claws
• Putting straight some facts about declawing
• Help us ban declawing in the USA

American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat

I am convinced that a large number (not all, please note) of American vets are unethical towards the cat and as a consequence they are in breach of the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics of the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) and their oath, if they are members of that association.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), established in 1863, is a not-for-profit association representing more than 78,000 veterinarians….

The veterinarian’s oath under the AVMA is:

Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.

Selected clause of the AVMA Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics:
PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR

1. Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient: to relieve disease, suffering, or disability while minimizing pain or fear. (comment: this is a basic principle and is right at the top of the document. It goes to the core of everything the vet does in his or her practice. The patient is the cat in this instance)

American vets are unethical towards the cat - Please Note: I have reproduced the above verbatim for accuracy and I justify this under fair use as they are extracts of a large document and it is in the public’s interest and the companion cat’s interest to have this discussion.

American vets are unethical towards the cat – Note: If anyone wants to use this article and is brave enough to do so! - I hereby license its use under creative commons. Please place this near the article if reusing it (including the links): American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat by Michael is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. It is based on work of my own. The license applies world wide. Also Please Note: I like America and Americans but strongly dislike the culture of declawing. It is not found anywhere else. Everything that I say or do in relation to the cat is on the basis of treating the cat as I would a person, with respect. Declawing is highly disrepectful of our cat companions.

Accusing a vet of being unethical is strong language, I know, but declawing cats on the whim of a cat “owner” who wants to protect furniture is an assault on the cat. Under these particular circumstances, it is deliberately inflicting a physical and possibly psychological injury on the cat. It is detrimental to the cat, a violation of a vet’s oath and a violation of the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics.

In fact, the president of the AVMA seems to agree with me! If that it the case what are they doing about it? The rules should be enforced more strictly and tightened up. She wants the law to prevent it when she can prevent it in changing the code of conduct of veterinarians.

In the UK a vet doing that on a consistent basis would, in my view be struck off and prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. He or she would probably be convicted and punished to a jail term not exceeding 51 weeks and/or a fine not exceeding £20,000 ($32,302 USD). His career would be ruined.

Yet in the United States of America, where they are proud to uphold basic human rights (but not the rights of cats, it seems) highly qualified and intelligent veterinarians have criminally assaulted, by European standards, at least 20 million cats. As there is almost no declawing in the UK, despite being allowed on medical grounds, I can only presume that 99.9% of that 20m are for the personal reasons of the person keeping the cat or the landlord renting out his flats (apartments).

American vets are unethical towards the cat – Note: I realise that some people use the argument that declawing saves the lives of cats as it means they can be kept by people living in apartments where the lease forbids it. I don’t go along with that argument. These people should not keep cats at all if the lease forbids it or seek a lease that does etc. It is this kind of self serving mentality that results in unwanted rescue cats that are put down in the millions in the USA.

If it is to be done appropriately the operation to declaw a cat should cost about 600 dollars but may increase up to 800 dollars if done using lasers, but it is worth it, says a well known vet tech (Asker) who contributes to Yahoo Answers. There is also a lot of pain treatment after the operation and “arthritis develops early in these cats and life long supplementation helps keep them comfortable and less stressed” (Asker – vet tech). This all equates to big money (total: $12,000,000,000 (USD) at today’s prices – I think this is 12 billion US dollars) for vets and it is money that drives some vets (a far too large a percentage, I allege) to carry out this operation in defiance of their code of conduct and their oath and also against the best interests of the cat (but in the interests of an ill advised human client).
There is an acute conflict of interest in the US veterinary profession: money –v- ethics. In the USA and elsewhere vets have, over recent years, strived to be treated as the equal of doctors. They started to call themselves doctors. This is a newish concept. If they want the status of doctors they should act like doctors and treat cats in the same way doctors treat people. Cats have no voice and cannot decide for themselves. That places a greater responsibility on the vet towards the cat. And it also places a great responsibility on the vet to explain all the facts to the person who keeps the cat. What the vet says to the cat keeper is the make or break moment as to whether the operation takes place or not. The cat keeper is in the hands of the vet at that moment. The vets words are critical and must comply with the ethical principles and oath.

Only on rare medical grounds should the operation be carried out. You know, there is quite a lot of denial in the veterinarian profession about cat declawing. There is a kind of manipulative management going on in some vet’s practices (I allege) that coerces vet techs and other employees to participate in the process of cat declawing against their better judgment (see the Psychology of Declawing).

The form below is, by the way, completely confidential. I have no idea who is voting. You can see the spreadsheet that stores the votes here: Results

In the UK (a country that is culturally close to and similar to the USA), the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which criminalises cat declawing, made no difference to the act of declawing because it simply hardly ever happened before. It is just not part of the culture and I think this comes to a very large part from the veterinarians. It can’t be the case that British people are more ethical generally that American people. It comes down to being trained and guided by the “experts” (the vets). In many ways they guide us in respect of how to treat our cats and they indirectly police us and dictate how we treat our cats.

“The procedure was considered cruel by almost all British vets, who refused to perform it except on medical grounds. The Guide to Professional Conduct of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons stated that declawing was "only acceptable where, in the opinion of the veterinary surgeon, injury to the animal is likely to occur during normal activity. It is not acceptable if carried out for the convenience of the owner ... the removal of claws, particularly those which are weight bearing, to preclude damage to furnishings is not acceptable."…(Wikipedia author)

As can been seen, the code of practice of vets in the UK is very explicit on this subject. What is happening in the United States? It would seem to me that the American Veterinary Medical Association, which is no doubt run by veterinarians is complicit in this cruelty and in fact condone it (as I understand it they permit it when there is destructive use of claws - this will always happen so it is a full approval but using what I call "weasel" words, words dressed up to sound like the veterinarian is doing the operation for a good reason) . In fact they must allow it as otherwise they would have taken steps to better manage what is a blot on the profession in the United States.

The surgery is basically an American “thing”. And it is an American thing because Americans are very driven by financial profit. It is why they are the richest nation in the world. What has happened is that self interest has got the better of American vets. But as mentioned their actions have, over time, coloured and altered the culture and opinions of a large number of ordinary Americans into believing that declawing is alright and acceptable when it clearly is not as it is in breach of the American Veterinary Medical Association’s code of conduct (when carried out for the personal and non-medical reasons of the cat keeper). That said, incidentally, polls in America (e.g. Petplace.com) strongly indicate that the majority of people are against declawing of cats.

It is considered inhumane and is illegal in many countries: England, Scotland, Wales, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, Portugal, Belgium, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Yugoslavia and Japan (src: Yahoo answers).

America is out of step with the world on declawing and it is in the hands of the directors and managers of the veterinarian associations to change an entirely distorted culture that is deeply ingrained in a substantial percentage of the American people.
American vets are unethical towards the cat - See also:

• Declawing Cats
• Declaw cats
• Cat declawing

Update: Babz made a comment and left a link for a petition. This is the link: Declawing Petition (new page).

From American vets are unethical towards the cat to Home Page

Animal Cruelty Statistics USA

Animal Cruelty Statistics for the USA are hard to find. Even the most respected of sources, HSUS, which provide some information, are unable sometimes to provide up to date information. Reporting of animal cruelty is not great, is it? I don't think we really have a handle on the problem.

A lot of the figures come from media reported cases. What percentage of the total cases are media reported? No one knows as most animal cruelty happens behind closed doors unannounced. Lets guess, I would say about 10% is in the media.

USA Animal Cruelty Statistics provided by HSUS plus some info.
Most common victims of animal cruelty (media reports)	Dogs (64.5%) - 2007
Percentage of cruelty cases involving companion cats	18% (2007)
Animals abused in connection with domestic violence (between people)	1,000,000 (estimated)
Number of men or women assaulted by partner annually USA	2,168,000 (2000)
Households keeping a companion animal	65% of households (2006)
Percentage of domestic violence victims who said partner also victimised pet	71% (1997)
US States that don't have felony provisions for animal cruelty (2009 src: HSUS)	Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota
What is a Crush Film?	A film showing the death by crushing of an animal
Are Crush Films allowed in the US?	Yes, protected as freedom of speech.

In the UK, it is no better. If you go to the RSPCA website, and search for animal cruelty statistics you simply don't get what you are looking for. I would like to see some real numbers, recent numbers and trends to see what is going on. Is it getting worse or better?



From Animal Cruelty Statistics USA to Home Page

International Enforcement is Needed for the Tiger

International Enforcement is Needed for the Tiger. I constantly see good intentions to save the tiger in Asia (remember the tiger is only found in Asia) thwarted by a failure to execute a plan. I made a posting recently about poisoning tigers and another about The Tiger is Doomed? In both the cases I feel that the Indian authorities could have achieved more and saved tiger lives if they had executed their plans to conserve the tiger more effectively. Another "failure to execute" has come to light. This is a saying commonly used by sportsmen like Tiger Woods. He plans a strategy but if he hits the ball badly by his standards that day he will have failed to execute the plan.

Another country manifesting a lack of proper execution of its plan is Indonesia. Whereas in China tiger parts are considered good for health when put into medicine, in Indonesia tiger body parts are thought to bring good luck (not for the tiger, obviously). This means that parts like whiskers, teeth, claws and skin, which is worn, bring the wearer good luck. And they also protect from black magic. Look I don't and won't criticize the people who wear these parts of the tiger but to believe in black magic is rather old fashioned, isn't it. That kind of thing went out of fashion 400 years ago, I thought. And I am not knocking some cultural thing. I am just making a comment about the archaic practice of black magic. Education would certainly play a role in drying up demand from the consumer. Another critical problem for the Sumatran tiger's survival is habitat destruction due to the timber trade. Habitat destruction for commercial reasons is a massive problem for the tiger in Asia generally.

The supply of raw product (the tiger) is drying up as a consequence of this ridiculously unacceptable trade. The latest plan (there must have been earlier failed plans) declared by the President of the Republic of Indonesia would seem to be the "Conservation Strategy and Action Plan of Sumatran Tiger 2007–2017" and made during the 2007 Climate Change Convention in Bali.

Yet in a press release by the World Conservation Union, Traffic and WWF dated 13th Feb 2008 (see report) it was declared that the laws of Indonesia have failed to protect the critically endangered (IUCN Red List status CR) Sumatran tiger. Body parts are on open sale in shops in Indonesia. The shop keepers don't even have to hide what they are doing. Any plan is going to fail under those circumstances. There cannot be any enforcement at all or very, very little. The survey estimated that tiger part sale had dropped between 2000 and 2006 due to less tigers being available for slaughter!:

Date	Number tiger estimated to supply shops with parts
2000	56
2006	23
10% of the 326 shops surveyed were selling Sumatran tiger parts

I hope that they don't mind me quoting them (I provide a link in exchange: IUCN Red List) "Despite TRAFFIC providing authorities with details of traders involved, apart from awareness-raising activities, it is not clear whether any serious enforcement action has been taken." This points to lack of execution.

What I want to suggest is that when it comes to people in need of help to save people under dire circumstances, the world communities' assistance is more often than not requested and accepted. Isn't there a market for an international force of wildcat or wildlife enforcement officers who can provide a neutral and independent enforcement task force in countries such as Indonesia to save a fantastic wild animal? And this really is about saving a species from extinction in the wild for ever - the Javan and Bali tigers have already disappeared. I say that international enforcement is needed for the tiger survival in the wild bearing in mind the failed enforcement of plans throughout Asia. International Enforcement is needed for the tiger's protection in relation to habitat loss too, provided the governments enact the laws and are behind an international force.

Heather Sohl of WWF says that if people need help in enforcement they only need ask.



International Enforcement is Needed for the Tiger to Home Page

International Enforcement is Needed for the Tiger - Photo of a Sumatran tiger at London Zoo, UK by by TGIGreeny and published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs creative commons License (this wesbite is for charitable purposes - cat rescue).

Tiger Farms

Are tiger farms bad? If we stand back and just get a gut feel for this question, a lot (a majority, I would say) of us would think tiger farms are hideous. How can we take the most popular wild animal in the world and farm it!? How can we turn such a proud and precious animal into farm livestock? It sounds disgusting. "To me it is disgusting," Valmik Thapar (a prominent conservationist) thunders. "It's not civil to have tiger farms; it's not part of anyone's dream." (I have quoted Mr Thapar and I am sure he will allow it).

But if we put away all sentiment it could be argued that tiger farms are a good idea at least on first impressions.

Farms like these are selling tiger bone wine and other products. The photograph (which I have selectively cropped), is by International Tiger Coalition. People are free to use this image on condition that they provide a credit. I can feel the stress these tigers are feeling cooped up like this, wholly unnaturally.

If the tiger has been poached to extinction (nearly) or its habitat and prey eroded to the point where it shares land with people to the demise of the tiger and a few people, then tiger farms are one way, on the face of it, to reduce poaching and preserve this big cat in the wild. And the unsentimental will say, "what is the difference between a tiger and a rabbit?" Both are wild animals and both are used for the pleasure of mankind, in one way or another. So why aren't we shouting from the rooftops about the rabbit or the horse, which is eaten by some people.

The reason why a gut feel is, in fact, the right feel is because tiger farms are a complete fraud and a sham. If they are meant to be a means to help preserve the wild tiger, they don't work. It is even more basic than that, it is simply about money, nothing else, making money from tigers in a cruel and uncaring way.

One reason why they are a sham, and dangerous to the wild tiger and not a benefit to them, is because the people who own and run these farms are lobbying the authorities (presumed CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) to allow tiger parts from the farms to be traded (in breach of CITES currently). If that is allowed, it is argued that, the trade in tiger parts will be encouraged and expanded and muddied up at a time when it is most critical and important for there to be a tightening up of CITES restrictions and not a loosening up.


Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition and thanks to Big Cat Rescue for showing these pictures on their website.

Here are some other reasons why tiger farms are bad:

• 5,000 live tigers are kept on tiger farms in China. There are about 4,000 (the figure is not certain) in the wild and 12,000 in the USA as "pets". The photograph below shows us how these farm tigers are treated at the end of their lives in very limited captivity:

Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition (cropped)

Yes I know we are disgusted by this image, those of us who have retained a sense of what is right. What you are looking at is the most popular wild animal in the world reduced to trash and meat, chilled flesh and bone, bereft of dignity. The owner of this farm was keeping what was left of the tiger bodies (you can see one has been skinned) until it becomes legal to trade in body parts. And CITES had asked, formally, China to investigate illegal sales of tiger meat at the Guilin farm. What is CITES doing asking China to investigate? This is preposterous. It is like asking the police to investigate an assault perpetrated by an officer on duty. Do we ever get a result from such an investigation? No. It is like the kind of investigation carried out by the Financial Securities Agency (FSA) in the UK (charged with monitoring the bankers) in investigating financial frauds -- forget it. It does not work. There is not enough independent and neutral control and management.

And it really is about attitude. I have yet to see someone talk about the attitude of people who find doing what is illustrated normal and acceptable. Surely this is at the root of the problem. Some people (sadly a lot of these people are in an area which is near where the tiger's habitat is) just find it acceptable to treat tigers as livestock. Actually, it is worse than that, you wouldn't treat livestock in some countries as the tiger is treated on tiger farms. I am sure that if a health and safety official visited a farm in the UK and found cattle lying around like these dead and mutilated tigers, he or she would make a formal complaint. So I conclude that the Chinese people involved in this business (not all Chinese please note - I don't want someone saying that I am racist, I am not) think of tigers as livestock on a farm. Many millions of people in the west think of tigers differently. And allowing tigers to be farmed will simply perpetuate this outdated and outmoded attitude.

The only long term answer is to educate and change attitudes and that will require the agreement of the Chinese government. To get their agreement there has to be a financial reward. The loss of the tiger in the wild is a world problem. The tiger belongs to the world and the world must find a way to save this animal.

The overriding problem, though, is that the majority of the people of the world do not know about this or if they do, they don't care sufficiently. How many people know about tiger farms? How many people ask whether tiger farms are bad? Lets guess, 2 million in the world. That represents 0.033 percent of the world's population, an infinitesimal amount and of no consequence. People generally, globally simply do not know or care enough to change things. And I am not being critical. It is just human nature.

It is shocking to realize that, "The 171 member nations of CITES made it clear last month that ‘tigers should not be bred for their parts and derivatives.'” The Chinese tiger part dealers are particularly bothered about this statement, are they? No. Some say that the Chinese have banned (in line with CITES) tiger body parts, but I for one don't believe it. The body parts of wild tigers are still being traded because no one is enforcing the CITES ban and there is too much money in the trade, which becomes more valuable as the tiger becomes rarer. Another factor: it costs 250 times more to raise a tiger in captivity than it does to poach a wild tiger. Killing wild tigers is more economically viable.


Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition

OK, what else is bad about tiger farms?:

1. Chinese tiger farmers say they are making a loss. This is because of the 14-year ban on domestic and international trade in tiger body parts. They want to open trade again. Question: how have they stayed in business for 14 years if they are making a loss? And if they started up within the past 14 years why did they go into the business if it was loss making. We don't believe this kind of comment do we?
2. Look at the pictures of the tigers waiting to be killed for their body parts. How do you think they feel? They are very static, very hot. They live in very small spaces. A tigers natural home range is 7-58 square miles - src: http://www.seaworld.org. This is torture waiting for (probably) a brutal death to be cut up and parts sold for the ridiculous Chinese medicine market. Why people in this day and age harbour medieval thoughts that a bit of a tiger can cure you of an illness is beyond me.
3. Apparently the owners of these farms show compassion for people who come to the tiger farms seeking and pleading to buy tiger bone to cure rheumatism. The tiger farm owners say they must reluctantly turn them away because of the restriction on trade. I guess the tiger farm owners don't tell them that tiger bone does not cure rheumatism and that it is all hocus pocus.
4. There is no need for original animal body parts in Chinese medicine. There are effective (probably far more effective than the tiger part which cannot be effective at all) substitutes. There is no need to treat tigers like this.
5. The farms sell tiger bone wine and tiger meat even. This is hideous and has nothing to do with conservation of the tiger, it is plain callous commercialization of an highly endangered animal.
   

I have to quote John Stellar, CITES's enforcement chief: "Wild tigers are about to go down the toilet, and we don't seem to be doing anything about it. The international community has been pouring money into this, and we have failed." As I have said we need a completely different attitude and really we need to shut down all Chinese tiger farms. CITES can't do this. No one can except the Chinese government and they are a very cynical government and will never do anything that undermines their power. Upsetting business undermines their power base. And tiger farms are big business. The problem should be tackled from a business perspective.


Tiger Farms - Save me please - Photo by International Tiger Coalition.

On the basis, as mentioned, that the tiger belongs to the world (and not humans) and its extinction in the wild is a world problem, I suggest this as a solution to the tiger farms problem:

1. Provide China with some sort of political incentive to close tiger farms. America is talking to China currently on economic matters, why can't the tiger be brought into the discussions?
   
2. The major nations of the world pool resources, including China, to recompense those businesses who are involved in the tiger body parts trade when the trade is shut down. The Chinese must shut this trade down but to make it palatable there has to be compensation.
3. In tandem with this there should be a nationwide program of education in China initially on alternatives to ingredients to Chinese medicine along the lines promulgated in the west. There are effective substitutes for all the tiger body parts that are used in "medicine".
   
4. As to skins etc. there is no short cut here. The traders should be compensated and retrained once trade is banned with proper enforcement. There is arguably a need for a world enforcement team along the lines of the UN.
   

UPDATE

It is April 2021, quite a few years after I wrote this article (March 2009) and tiger farms have got worse as we would expect because China is very industrious at whatever they do. The demand for tiger body parts is bound to grow therefore they need more tigers to slaughter like livestock to supply the body parts. 

Incidentally, a bit of good news but only very incidentally to the main topic: China's human population is stagnating. Their citizens are not having babies despite the government's attempts to encourage them to have families. The one child policy has long been removed and now they can have 2 children but citizens are not taking up the offer. This means the demand for tiger body parts might level off and stabilise but perhaps I am being overly optimistic.

It is said that today, in 2021, China's tiger farms have turned a wild animal into a species worth more dead than alive. Tigers are reduced to living in just 6% of their former distribution and they've become more valuable as livestock and to be slaughtered than to watch them and admire them in the wild. China has reduced them to that status in my honest opinion. But other countries also have tiger farms and they are all in Asia.

As tigers become rarer in the wild because of poaching and human population growth in India where the Bengal tiger primarily lives, they become more valuable in captivity, on farms. One of the most popular tiger products is tiger bone wine, a concoction that is claimed to treat arthritis, impotence and rheumatism. Perhaps it is claimed to cure pretty well everything and people believe it is well. There is no science to back this up.

Tiger body parts are cooked for wealthy businessmen and bureaucrats because they like to demonstrate their elevated social status and their wealth. They also think that eating bits of a tiger does them some good in some way.

There are now estimated 8,000 tigers held in captivity on farms across China and in Laos, Thailand and Vietnam as at the date of this update. They are housed in appalling conditions, concrete floors, barely enough space to allow them any form of normal exercise, completely unnatural habitat et cetera. Tigers bred on these farms for their bones are often malnourished and it is said that their deaths are deliberately induced by starvation.

One worker said that a skeleton is a bag of bones which is what they're looking for anyway. Tigers bred for meat rather than for bones are plumped up by being pumped full of liquid and force-fed to make them as fat as possible. The farmers fatten them up because they get more money for their carcasses. They can barely stand at the end of their lives with their stomach scraping low to the ground.

These tiger farms are described as speed-breeding factory farms providing raw materials for high-end products. It is a conveyor belt from the creation of cubs by a mother who is quickly brought back into heat by removing her cubs once born. They are used as forms of entertainment. Visitors can pay to cuddle and bottle feed them, take selfies with them for their social media webpages. Then once the cubs have grown up they can be fattened up and slaughtered. Everything is commercialised.

This once magnificent creature has been reduced to a commercial asset, to be maltreated as livestock and then fed to the arrogant and hungry mouths of rich bureaucrats in China and Laos.

Are Tiger Farms Bad? to Bengal Tiger Facts

Cat Show in India

I have just noticed that they do have a kind of cat show in India. Actually it is a pet show that included cats, domestic cats, that is. Maybe it was more of a dog show. Dogs are more usually kept as pets in India probably because dogs can "do something" tangible such as be guard dogs. Cats don't seem to do anything but that is incorrect. Their presence is very beneficial to us, it has been proved in scientific research.


A nice picture of Namil Nadu by puss_in_boots.

The "pet carnival" took place in Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. The show always takes place in Tamil Nadu, it seems. That is an extraordinary place, on the face of it, to have a carnival where companion animals are celebrated. This is because, in this state it is reported, and I have reported on this, as has this website: http://www.thaindian.com, where some farmers (a small number, I hope) eat the humble domestic cat (they are in fact, Irulas and Boers of Tamil Nadus Krishnagiri District). I dislike that immensely and I am not talking down to people or anything like that. I am just reporting what I read. These farmers think the domestic cat's blood has medicinal properties and all that kind of stuff. It is a bit like the beliefs of the Hindu swamis who wear rare animal parts, quite disgusting to me. I made a post on Some Indians Eat Cat Meat.

So, we have both the celebration of the companion animal, the domestic cat, and the brutal slaughtering of that animal (the cat's throat is cut) taking place in the same region of India. In fact the two events take place about 180 miles apart on my reckoning. Actually now I think about it, it seems like normal human behavior.

This is where Coimbatore is:


View Larger Map

Cat Show in India to Cats and the Law in India

Cat Facts

There are over 2,000 pages of cat facts on this website. They are not simply regurgitated facts but opinionated and carefully prepared facts; please use Google custom search on the home page! Yes, this site is about a lot more than pictures of cats. It is about the best facts about cats, too. And I cannot tell you about them all on one page because there are so many facts. The best thing to do by far is to simply type in what you are searching for and, bingo, Google will oblige.

My favorite cat facts are these sorts of facts:

Cat Facts: Animal Rights - the competition and antagonism between, for example, cat breeders, sport hunters, even pet "owners" and the animal rights activists such as PETA and HSUS is astonishing. I, for one, cannot understand why these polarized groups cannot work together in the interests of the cat (except of course the horrible, callous and unthinking sport hunters). These are people from both ends of the spectrum who claim to love animals so lets see it in action, working together. President Obama has realized that the best way forward is one of dialogue, a unified approach and the lesson should be learned by these disparate groups. I have made a number of posts on this subject here's three (a) Cat Breeders and Animal Rights (b) Bone to Pick With PETA (c) Cats and the Law.

We must also think very hard about the wild cats. We don't see them enough to think about them and we don't see them enough because they are either hiding from us (wisely - I am thinking about, for example, the elusive Canadian Lynx) or there aren't that many left due to the ever present human population expansion resulting in habitat loss for the wild cat, poaching, which takes place mainly in third world countries due to economic pressures and the unjustifiable, horrible sport hunting. Poaching is driven by commercial enterprises as Chinese Medicine. The current economic downturn will make things worse for the wildcat.

I am one of those people who disagree with animal experimentation. I do realize though that there are arguments for it, I just don't agree with them. Daily we read about discoveries that inform us about the hidden intelligence of many wild species. We are still learning. We must not presume that wild animals used in animal testing are not feeling great distress and pain notwithstanding the rules and regulations surrounding animal testing (in some countries - China has no animal welfare laws in relation to testing or general domestic animal welfare). These rules don't protect the animals. And it is intelligent scientists who perform the experiments. Animal testing is even done by cosmetics companies and by cat food manufacturers (Purina). The first is obviously completely ridiculous and the second is extremely hypocritical and ridiculous.

Then there are the feral cats, the vulnerable cats that have returned to the wild. These are the forgotten cats. We created them through our irresponsibility and now we kill them as pests and as a nuisance. These cats have few rights except those given by devoted rescue center people.

Cat Facts: The Breeds - We can't discuss cat facts without having a comprehensive look at the domestic cat breeds and this site covers all the main cat breeds and more, that is also what I would call the fringe breeds. There are well over 100 in all. The most popular of these breeds are the Siamese, Maine Coon, Bengal, Persian and Abyssinian. All the breeds can be accessed through the navigation bar links. And unlike nearly all other cat sites you'll get probably the best cat photography anywhere and plenty of it. That is why the site is called Pictures of Cats.

Cat Facts: Cat Appearance - Of course I discuss cat breed appearance extensively but there are some aspects of appearance that cut across cat breeds such as cat coats, head types and body shapes. All these interesting cat facts can be accessed from the home page of the main site here: Home Page.

Cat Facts: Cat Behavior - We see a lot on the internet about cat behavior, one of the most commonly seen cat facts. We see cat facts about aggressive cat behavior, example. And, you know, I have never had a problem with cat aggression. Yes, I have seen cat aggression but not as a problem. And there lies the problem with us. It is about the expectation of how a cat should behave. We sometimes expect and hope that our cat behaves in a way wholly suitable to us, like a very well trained husband or wife. We seek that perfect harmony brought about by one companion animal fitting in perfectly with our tastes but this will not happen. We need to remind ourselves that cats are near wild in character despite thousands of years of domestication. Their behavior will reflect that and if it doesn't it may well be because of something that we are doing to cause what we might see as inappropriate behavior. In short we need to accept our cats as they are and create an environment for them in which they can behave naturally (see Five Freedoms for Indoor Cats). Under these circumstances there will almost certainly be no cat behavioral problems.

Some cat breeds behave slightly differently to others. These are normally wild cat hybrids. The difference in behavior results from the close proximity of the wild genes of the ancestral cat. Take, for example, the ever present Bengal cat. Even the STD (stud book tradition - 4th generation) Bengal will have 12.5% wild cat genes and that translates to a slightly more intelligent, bold or inquisitive character, which in turn means more activity and more input from us (see King Tut the Bengal cat Goes for a Ride). This type of behavior is common for all the wild cat hybrids and the nearer the cat to the ancestral wild cat the more it is apparent. See these posts for example:

1. Bengal cat behavior
2. Helmi Flick on a Chausie
3. Wild cat hybrids (for the number of hybrids)

The typical domestic cat behavior for both purebred and mixed breed cats (if well socialized) should be loving, gentle, inquisitive and relaxed around people and other pets. Some domestic cats have evolved more than others away from the wild cat energized character. One example is the Persian or the Ragdoll, both very laid back cats and, as far as is possible, they are made for the artificial living of indoors, the ultimate form of domestication.

Cat Facts: Cat Health- This subject will always play a major role in respect of cat facts. But can and should people who are not vets get involved? Well, yes to a degree. These are the reasons why:

• Vets write books that instruct people to administer medical care, which is an admission that cat keepers can and should provide some kinds of primary care to a limit.
• Cat breeders commonly provide almost full veterinarian standard care to their cats despite being unqualified (formally).
• The experiences of laypeople, just ordinary cat keepers, can shed light on cat health problems where veterinarian's can fail sometimes
  
• Veterinarians are in business, they are not doctors (for people) and are not beholden to the same ethics. This can rarely result in bias and the ordinary person can counteract this sometimes.

Some diseases are far more common than others and there is a catalog of diseases that are routinely encountered. These can be seen here: Cat Health Problems. Do purebred cats have more cat health problems? Probably, yes. See Genetic Diseases in Purebred Cats. For example, I think that the Modern Siamese cat (lots more breeding development than the Traditional Siamese) is less healthy than the traditional cat of this breed. See Siamese Cat Health. The most common cat illness is Urinary Tract Infections followed by Gastritis. Diarrhea is ranked 5th most common. See the full top ten list: Most Common Cat Illnesses.

Cat Facts: Cat Size - There is an understandable fascination with cat size and this covers domestic cat, wild cat, individual cats and breed or species of cat. This makes it a bit tricky as some domestic cat breeds are wild cat hybrids and the first generation offspring of these hybrid cats are going to be the biggest domestic cat breed, if it is fair to include them. This is because generally (not all) small to medium sized wildcats are bigger than domestic cats and because of hybrid vigor. That said I have made two posts, one on the largest domestic cat breed and the other on the Worlds Biggest Cat. The largest domestic cat breed is the wild cat Serval when tamed but the largest "genuine" domestic cat breed is the F2 Savannah followed by the even more genuine Maine Coon. The largest individual cat is a Liger (Tiger/Lion hybrid) and the largest wild cat species is the Bengal tiger.


Cat Facts: Rare Cat Breeds - I guess it goes without saying that some breeds are rarer than others and I am talking about domestic cat breeds. Some cat breeds have been around and developed since the beginning of the cat fancy in the late 19th century and just beyond. These are well established and popular by and large. The classic examples are the Maine Coon, Siamese and Persian. These are not rare breeds. Other breeds have been "discovered" fairly recently and not really taken off, such as the rare Sokoke. Others have been around quite some considerable time and still not taken off such as the American Wirehair, still one of the rare cat breeds.

I have used a practical and novel way of establishing which breeds are rare and the analysis can be seen on this page: Rare Cat Breeds.

Cat Facts: the Wild Cats - My heart bleeds for the wild cats as it does for the feral cats, which are also wild. Despite the best efforts of many (CITES, IUCN Red List etc.) the wild cats from my perspective are declining in numbers year on year. There may be some isolated success stories but it will be against the trend as human population continues to rise rapidly. This can only mean one thing ultimately. A greater encroachment on the wild cat's range and habitat to the cat's detriment indeed ultimate demise. That is why all the wild cat posts and articles are focused on that most important of issues, conservation and preservation, without which there is little point in talking about appearance or behavior. See Wild Cats and Wild Cat Hybrids.

Cat Facts: The Rest -There is a veritable pile of cat facts in addition to the topics mentioned above from cartoon cats, to choosing a cat breed, the general development of the cat breeds, best videos, stupid videos, cats and the law, flickr groups on cat photography, and more. The best way to find it is to use the custom search facility on the home page of this blogger site or the main site - enjoy. Oh, one last and very important point. This site would not be possible without the contribution of Helmi Flick's fantastic cat photographs.

Cat Facts to Home Page

Domestic Animal Rights

Domestic animal rights are enshrined in animal protection laws in countries that have animal protection laws. The problem is that a lot of countries don't have animal protection laws and those that do have difficulty enforcing the law effectively.

You can see the animal protection laws of a number of countries on this page: Cat and the Law. There is an international declaration of animal rights but it currently means little: Universal Declaration of Animal Rights.

It is worth reminding ourselves that there are many countries where there are inadequate or no human rights laws so it cannot be expected that there will be domestic animal rights throughout the world, far from it, in fact. We (the human) are simply not that far advanced as a species.

In some countries there is a flagrant abuse of domestic animals and cats. One example is those countries that do nothing about stopping the cat meat market (areas of China -see cat meat name and shame). In tandem, these countries also abuse the natural rights of wild animals and particularly (for me) the wild cats (see Bengal tiger facts as just one example).

The relationship between human and cat has gone slightly astray to the detriment of domestic animal rights. This is because the human has become too powerful on the planet. We are the top predator and we generally act to the detriment of other animals while serving our own interests.

You will find domestic animal rights in the law. The rights will not be stated but the law will be based on those rights and reflect the rights by establishing a system to protect them. All laws though are faulty to varying degrees so the protection of domestic animals is partial at best.

Domestic Animal Rights to Cat Anatomy
Arguments Against Animal Rights
Cosmetics and Animal Testing
Purina Pet Cat Food

Animal Bill of Rights

Is there is such a thing as an animal bill of rights? Well there is a Universal Declaration on Animal Rights. A Bill of Rights should be a document that prepares the way for a law on animal rights. In the UK it is the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42), which is largely taken from European law.

I don't know of a bill on animal rights but if there was such a bill it may be based on the Universal Declaration referred to above. There is probably no need for one to be honest because it is more direct to simply enact animal welfare law and there are some good examples of animal welfare law in the world. See for example Swedish law and UK law.

Animal Bill of Rights to Cat and the Law.

Cat Welfare in the USA

Cat welfare in the USA is not in bad shape on the face of it. More, lots more, though, can be done. There are too many feral, stray cats. Too many unnecessary deaths of innocent and unloved cats. Far too much declawing. The almost automatic declawing of domestic cats indicates a deep rooted misunderstanding of the human/domestic cat relationship, which I find deeply disturbing. Lots of people support HSUS and PETA. And lots don't like the way that they operate.

Do you think these organizations should have a voice that influences the new government of Barak Obama? Well, we know how the President-elect likes to be in touch with the mood and feelings of the people. He has a website on which you can vote the above point. A cat breeder or someone who dislikes the animal rights movement has "petitioned" the President-elect with this ainimal welfare vote. It argues that the powers of HSUS and PETA should be limited. Do you agree?

President-elect Citizens Briefing Book - Animal Welfare - HSUS & PETA - for or against?

Cat Welfare in the USA may be affected by this vote.

Cat Breeders and Animal Rights

Sarah Palin and dead bear, sport hunted. Photo: smiteme

Cat breeders and animal rights activists are really the two sides of the same coin or they should be. But you wouldn't believe it the way they attack each other. Cat breeders should (and most are) sensitive towards animals. They care about their cats. They grant their cats lots of rights. They are, in one sense, animal rights people.

However, although I am not against cat breeders I don't like they way that some tend to brand people who fight for animal rights, "AR extremists" (Animal Rights extremists). Some cat breeders tend to brand all people who fight for animal rights as extremists. It seems to be some sort of defense mechanism. Breeders sometimes feel under attack from AR people and defend themselves by insinuating that animal rights people are "extremists", meaning unbalanced people of criminal intent thereby insulting them and giving the impression that they are not worth listening to.

This is clearly wrong. Only a very tiny minority of people who are concerned with animal rights become "extremists" and most of that tiny minority take peaceful and legal action. This is a good thing, surely, and cat breeders should welcome it. In the eyes of some people, even the AR people who break the law have a good reason to do so. The law, after all, is not always that effective is it? How effective are animal rights laws in protecting vulnerable animals? Take laboratory experiments, for example. I would bet that a decent number of cat breeders are against animal experimentation but feel powerless to change things. It is legal after all. Yet they would criticise AR extremists who fight at the sharp end to change the law and protect innocent animals (including cats) who are experimented upon in the name of commerce, the making of a buck.

For me the point is this. Cat breeders and animal rights should and most often do go together. I don't see an absolute reason why cat breeding should not exist. Provided it is done in a highly responsible way and the global and wider picture is noted. I don't think cat breeders cause the feral cat problem; it's the buyers. Anyway cat breeders breed purebred cats and buyers of purebred cats are usually, nearly always, very responsible people in relation to caring for their cats.

So, AR people should lighten up a little on attacking cat breeders and cat breeders should start talking to AR people and find a common method of proceeding. Cat breeders and animal rights people should be two sides of the same coin.

Update 16th Jan 2009: A visitor made a comment saying I didn't know the meaning of animal rights. I think this person has a narrow view of animal rights. This is a definition: The concept that animals are entitled to certain fundamental rights such as the right to be spared undue suffering. Such fundamental rights are not necessarily compromised by cat breeders. The small wild cat of his/her own volition became domesticated and lives a more secure life domesticated than in the wild. That is why they became domesticated.

Update 12th Feb 2009: I have just noticed Ingrid Newkirk's views on breeding and pet ownership. I agree with her that we should use the term companion animal and not ownership of animals. The law is slow to change on this. But she is against the concept of companions animals totally it seems. I wonder why. The concept of companionship is a positive one. The idea being that both sides benefit. After all, as mentioned, the wild cat would not have allowed herself to become domesticated if the process did not benefit her. Yes, pet ownership and the domestic cat situation has got out of hand. There are a number of negative these days for the cat that is domesticated. For instance, the cat has to live indoors to be safe. We have created a world hostile to the cat outdoors. Humans have screwed up, no doubt, but at the beginning of domestication many thousands of years ago the relationship worked well. We shoudn't throw out the baby with the bath water but modify the process of cats or dogs as companion animals not eliminate it.

Update 21-2-09: A thought: Do cat breeders of purebred cats (responsible cat breeders by and large) affect the rights of feral cats? - ANS: No. Do cats have rights before they are born? ANS: No. Do purebred cats receive excellent animal rights? ANS: Yes nearly all of the time.

Cat Breeders and Animal Rights to Home Page

Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions

Photo: creative commons