What percentage of cats are declawed?

Thirty-one percent (31%) of all domestic cats in the United States are declawed; it is said (source: www.paw-rescue.org - Jennifer Dougherty).

I had thought that the figure was nearer 20% but it seems that I was wrong. However, the AVMA (America Veterinary Medical Association) estimate that 25% of cats in the city of Los Angeles are declawed (source: advocatesforfacts.org). I don't know if LA is a typical city in respect of declawing. This information comes from a National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy which found that 25 percent of all cats in the United States are declawed.

Other than the above, I don't think there are any clear figures compiled from a formal nationwide survey. The AVMA estimate indicates that.

If there are about 80 million cats in the USA, 31% of that figure is 24.8 million declawed cats.

It appears that the cost of declawing varies enormously from about $60 to about $300. It is a fast operation despite the severity of it (15 minutes?). If we say the average cost is about $100 (conservative price perhaps), the declaw market to vets is worth in total: $2,480,000,000 dollars USD or about 2.5 billion dollars.

Letter to Governor on Declawing Cats

In this time of uncertainty in the United States why not write to your governor about the declawing of cats? It may be a good time to do this. Minds might be more open to the possibilities.

Annie Bruce (the author of Cat Be Good) and Ruth Young have. Ruth wrote to Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Below is Ruth's (Monty's mom) letter which she says anyone can use if they like. Obviously, you can and should personalize it. I don't expect you to agree all the contents but who cares. The important thing is to do the letter and send it!

Office of Governor XXXX
ADDRESS HERE

Dear Governor XXXX,

I am writing to you about an issue that may seem small in light of all that is going on in Wisconsin right now.  However, you have been consistently doing the right thing when it comes to fiscal issues, so I feel I can trust you to weigh both sides and do the right thing on another very difficult issue.

A few communities in other states have already made it illegal to declaw cats. I believe Wisconsin needs to follow their lead.

I am not a person to look to the government to solve every problem. I believe President Reagan was right when he said that the scariest words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I am generally against legislation that places undue constraints on private enterprise. So how can I be for a new law against declawing cats? The answer is simple. According to our laws against animal cruelty, delcawing is already against the law. It is, quite simply, animal abuse for the convenience of the owner.

I believe in freedom. But I also believe people need to behave in such a way that they merit freedom.  Vets who put profit ahead of the welfare of their patients are not behaving as free people should.

Declawing, which should be a last resort procedure, is a quick money maker for vets and seemingly a quick fix for a pet owner. But the pets and their caretakers are left to pick up the pieces, as the cat starts refusing to use the litter box, becomes a biter and limps around on his stumps. This is not how a free people should treat the most vulnerable among us—animals who have no voice and no choice in how they are treated.

To me the issue mirrors abortion. The MD performs the abortion, making the quick profit. But a baby is dead and the mother is left to pick up the pieces as she deals with depression and guilt.  Like declawing, we take what should be a last resort procedure and use it as a quick easy fix, with suffering as the direct result.  In either case, is this how people who merit freedom behave?

The profit motive is usually a good thing, in that it motivates people to work harder. In doing so they do things to help all of us, like sell us gas and groceries, serve us meals,  clean up after us, bind our wounds, protect our lives and property and teach our kids. But what happens when the motive for profit overrides common decency and suffering is the result? I would love to see the AVMA change things from the inside. Their own statements call declawing a last resort procedure, but vets in the US are declawing kittens and providing packages including declawing with spay/neuter surgeries.

Vets claim declawing will keep cats in homes, but my research has shown me the opposite result. Deprived of their claws, many cats become biters. Bites are generally more serious than scratches. Due to the significant pain following declaw surgeries, cats may start to avoid the litter box, because it hurts so much.

Cats are digitigrade - they walk on their toes. Declawing takes the weight bearing structure away, because the whole last joint must be removed to avoid the claw growing back. Sometimes it does anyway. The rate of complications from declaw surgeries is very high.  Post declaw surgeries, cats have significant pain, including phantom pain, as following any amputation. The loss of the natural weight bearing structure in their paws leads to changes in gait, more pain, and even arthritis over time. Vets who declaw try to deny these changes and side effects, but to me the negative results of declawing are obvious. I work as a physical therapist assistant, so the connections between form and function are very clear to me. Changes from the original design are not usually beneficial!

All this to keep cats in their homes—as if every cat caretaker will relinquish or put down his/her cat over a few scratches on the furniture! If this is true, we really are not behaving as free people ought! But I think the vets exaggerate this situation. I believe the average person will trust his vet and take his cues from this professional, sworn to act only in the best interest of animals. I have friends who had a vet refuse to declaw a cat, and that was enough to convince them not to ever have it done. I have other friends who declaw every cat who comes into their lives and will not listen to my arguments against the procedure because I’m just a PTA, not a vet, and their vet certainly knows best.

This is a situation where government needs to step in. I wish we could step in where abortion is concerned as well, but perhaps that day will come. On the issue of declawing cats we can make a difference right now.

I encourage you to research this topic for yourself. Pictures-of-cats.org has many useful articles on the subject.  Thanks for taking the time to learn about what may seem to be a less important issue. Believe me when I say that how a society treats its most vulnerable members should always be an issue of primary concern.

Sincerely,

SIGN OFF HERE

Demystifying Declawing

Mid July 2011 - The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have made a video which "Demystifies Declawing". The AVMA is one of the world's oldest medical organizations. It was founded in 1863. Veterinary medicine has been in existence for 250 years.

My message to the administrators at the AVMA is this. It is still a great mystery to me and many others why you are living in the dark ages when it comes to declawing cats.

Although you have been around for 148 years which allows you plenty of time to evolve and become educated, you still allow your members, of which there are about 81,000, to mutilate cats at the convenience of their "owners".

Despite your endless attempts to argue your case through manipulated scientific research that can serve any purpose, you consistently miss the central and most important point about declawing. It is morally wrong. And you know it. All the arguments in the world cannot circumvent that simple fact.

You are consistent in one way, however. You consistently misrepresent declawing while trying so hard to present an honest face. You still call it "declawing". That one word on its own is a total misrepresentation. And you know it. You allow your members to present the argument that laser declawing is..Oh so much easier on the cat. Quick recovery..blah..blah. Wrong and you know it.

In your policy statement on declawing you leave the door open for your members to declaw for non-therapeutic reasons. Your members have driven a horse and cart through that door because nearly all of them declaw for reasons that are against the interests and welfare of the patient - the cat. And all of it is in clear breach of the veterinarian's oath that is frankly worthless.

To compound your failings as a governing body, you admit that "aggressive pain management is absolutely necessary" when declawing. Your members are putting cats through massive pain at the convenience of their "owners". These owners are not guardians or caretakers. They can't be can they? Personally I would describe them as the opposite. And your members encourage this.

I'll do my bit to demystify things. The reason why you cannot stop the practice of declawing is because you are toothless and immoral. Your members want to keep declawing because it is a big money spinner. And they pay your wages.

It is horrible and my message to all of you at the AVMA is: shame on you for behaving in such an immoral way.

Declaw Demo

I am happy to have created the idea of a demonstration against declawing at St. Louis, the coming weekend outside the AVMA convention.

I am sad that I cannot be there. As I have previously said, I cannot justify spending an estimated $1000 travelling from Europe to St. Louis in the hope that someone will turn up. Unfortunately, I received no more than a handful of confirmations of attendance. I am not criticising anyone; I have no right to. I have nothing but praise for anyone who supports the idea of a demonstration against declawing.

Having reluctantly taken a back seat, I had hoped that someone would take up the baton and see if they could do something to make the demonstration work. It appears that this has happened.

As far as I can tell a demonstration will take place on Saturday 16th July 2011. It seems that this has been organised by local people. If I am correct, I say, "Well done". I wish you the best of luck. I would like you to tell us what happened; just say it here if you feel inclined to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that the declawing of cats for non-therapeutic reasons will stop one day. The stopping has to come from the people who keep cats. There are many cat guardians in the USA who hate declawing, But taken as a whole and in general, cat declawing is supported in the USA at present (16th July 2011). I have to make this conclusion because it exists.

If people in general disagreed with it, declawing would gradually fade away. You would not need laws to ban it (one example).

Declawing is a state of mind. You can only take your cat to the vet to be declawed if you see your cat as "something" that is less than a living and feeling animal companion. If you have a true empathy with your cat - the hallmark of a proper relationship with a cat companion - the idea of declawing is revolting. The same applies to the veterinarians who drive this aberrant behavior.

The idea of the demonstration was to do something, "on the ground", something more tangible and direct than writing words in cosy and comfortable surroundings far removed from the sharp end. I feel that something like this is needed to chip away at that false state of mind, which makes declawing acceptable.

I still find it very strange, an anomaly, that declawing exists in the USA. It is a national "mistake". Something went wrong. It is time to correct it.

Californian veterinarians have no right to complain about unlicensed providers

The California Veterinary Association (CVMA) are complaining about unlicensed animal healthcare providers. This is in response to the increase in people who are not qualified veterinarians providing animal healthcare services such as dental cleanings without anesthetics as I presume they are unqualified to anesthetize an animal. These unqualified people also provide services such as "physical therapy"(not sure what that is) and chiropractic services (spinal adjustment - never heard that being performed on animals particularly companion animals).

The point that I want to make is this. The Californian vets haven't a leg to stand on. They have no right to complain. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

The CVMA cynically defended at every possible stage the ban on declawing in eight cities in California. They did this with poor tired arguments that fail to stand up to scrutiny. They would support the declawing of cats to their last drop of blood while being totally blinkered to the fact that the process is in breach of their oath, the foundation stone of their work. Declawing is more than that. It is a cynical abuse of trust and a money spinner that greedy vets hang on to. It is outdated. It is morally wrong - obviously.

The Californian vets have chucked out any moral standing. As they are mutilating cats for the mere convenience of the cat's owner, they have forfeit the right to criticise and complain about unlicensed practitioners some of whom may be better than them.

Of course care should be exercised when seeing an unlicensed animal healthcare provider but the same can be said about vets! There are a lot who have casually sliced of the tip of the toes of thousands of cats with a guillotine, a device that one vet says is blunt and hard to use precisely that may leave bone fragments in the mutilated toe.

Shut up California vets! You have lost your right to criticize. Change your ways. Get real. Become moral. Wake up and start educating cat owners in how to care for cats without chopping off the last joint of the toes.

Then you will regain the moral high-ground and only then will you have the right to look down on unlicensed healthcare providers.



From Californian veterinarians have no right to complain about unlicensed providers to Home Page

Laser Declawing - The Guilt Free Way!

There is an extraordinary page on the internet in which a vet confidently declares to the world that you need not feel guilty taking your cat to the vet to have her toes mutilated in a declawing operation. Fear not. All is well; laser declawing is here. Another fancy use of the good old laser. It is almost painless. Recovery is quick and everything will be over in a jiff.

It really is a classic bit of cynical propaganda by the vet as a way of fighting back over the gradual realisation by the American people, the millions of would be and current cat caretakers, that declawing their cat is wrong - plain wrong. Convenient it might be but wrong it still is.

Well another vet in his personal attempt to sell the idea of declawing says that he prefers the old fashioned scalpel as it is more accurate. He says that laser declawing takes longer to get over because it burns the flesh. Hmmm, I would have thought that a laser would burn the flesh and a lot more.

As to the third way, the guillotine, this is imprecise, relatively blunt and unless you are a very skilled vet you are liable to leave a piece of bone in the stump of the toe. This will cause endless pain. Most vets use this method as far as I am aware! So much for no long term pain.

Any declawing is wrong if we are honest with ourselves. It is for our convenience and totally against the wellbeing of the cat, who most people consider a family member. Doesn't it strike you as strange that people who love their cats and who consider him or her a family member should burn her flesh and mutilate her toes in removing the last phalange of the toe for the sake of convenience?

I do.



See my photostream.

See an article on cat declawing and see 150 more articles on this important subject.





From Laser Declawing - The Guilt Free Way! to Home Page

THE GUILT FREE LASER DECLAW

The extraordinary words of a vet "THE GUILT FREE LASER DECLAW" is the title of his web page. He carries out laser declawing and he wants to promote it. I find this title extraordinary because he goes on to say that he knows cat owners feel guilty because he hears comments all day from customers that tell him that they are feeling guilty about asking him to chop of the last phalange (section of bone beyond last joint) of each front toe.



He is trying to assuage their guilt, make them feel less guilty by saying that the operation is less painful and much better for the cat. The cat gets over laser declawing faster. Not all vets agree. This page discusses laser declawing in more detail.

I just want to analyse the idea that the vet can promote declawing on the back of the customer's guilt! It seems very odd indeed.

He is sure people feel guilty about getting their cat declawed. This tells us that these cat owners know that what they are doing is wrong but can't resist having the operation carried out. The drive to remove the cat's claws overcomes the resistance in knowing that it is wrong.

The vet knows that the customer knows that the operation is morally wrong and tries to convince the customer to go ahead anyway. The vet, in short, is encouraging the customer to do something that the customer knows is wrong. Don't you find this extraordinary? What is also very strange is that the vet does not understand what he is actually doing in promoting laser declawing in this way. This tells us that the vet is stupid (this is my opinion only and not a statement of fact).

It is encouraging to know that people who have their cats declawed do in general (according to this vet) feel it is wrong. They sense it is wrong but bury that uneasy feeling about the operation. This squares up with what the law states in Europe where it is banned. Legislators create law for the people and the law should reflect what the people want. So people in Europe find declawing morally wrong. Americans feel the same way but that feeling is squashed by the promotional activities of vets.

The vets also know it is wrong but in the absence of overriding legislation to stop them they allow their greed to get the better of them. See this classic promotional method.

Declawing cats in the USA is based on greed and expediency. The classic weaknesses of humankind are manifested in this horrible and inexcusable operation. See Cat Declawing.



From THE GUILT FREE LASER DECLAW to Home Page

Cat Declawing

I want to write about cat declawing but I don't want to alienate people who keep cats and who are good cat caretakers except for the fact that we disagree about declawing cats. As you might know I strongly dislike the operation and its sister operation the cutting of the tendon to the claw (tendonectomy).

I'd like to explain why I dislike declawing. I hope that people with the opposite view or people who are wavering in the middle ground, will listen and present their alternative ideas in comments.

There are numerous reasons why cat declawing is wrong. I'll present just the main ones here. I'll also present the reasons why vets support and encourage (yes, lots do) declawing. Actually there is only one reason that they can come up with. The cat owners who declaw also can only come up with one reason to declaw. Some cat owners may have a misunderstanding about the operation, so I would first like to show you the bits of cat that are cut off after the operation and it is not just removing the claws:

Set of ten toes and claws of declawed cat -
copyright protected. Don't breach copyright, please

I hope you are as shocked as me. As you can see that cat declawing is the removal of the last phalange or phalanx of each of the front toes of the cat. It is usually only done to the front paws as it is these that scratch. They are the primary weapons with the teeth that protect the cat.



Video above: this is me doing a spur of the moment video on cat declawing. See my Flickr photostream.

The first reason why cat declawing is wrong is because it is a major mutilation of the cat that does not benefit the cat's health and welfare - quite the opposite.

Think what we would feel like if the last joint of each of our fingers were amputated for no good reason. We would be massively distressed and physically disabled.

As you might expect ten amputations cause a lot of pain and blood and distress and confusion etc:

As I said, pain, fear and confusion reign after the operation

And all this controlled brutality befalls little kittens in the first months of their lives. Yes, kittens are the primary target for the vets in respect of this operation.

There have been numerous studies as to the effect cat declawing has on the cat, both physical and psychological. If you have declawed your cat you might well, justifiably argue that your cat looks and acts fine after the operation. He might be but he might not. You can't be sure because cats are damn good at hiding pain and discomfort - it is a survival thing and a declawed cat has a massively reduced chance of survival in normal life. They have to be permanent indoor cats for the rest of their lives.That entails greater responsibilities for the cat owner (caretaker is a better word, I think). Here is a story about how two dogs played tug-o-war with a declawed cat. And here are two more stories: Declaw Cats (please scroll down when you get to the page)

There are many potential and actual complications of declawing and many myths and truths. Please click on the two last links. One is the onset of arthritis. Here is an individual example - a semi-domesticated CANADIAN LYNX gets a haircut!



There are also many easy alternatives to declawing so it is not necessary to put a cat through it.

A good scratching post and the right expectations about cat behavior from us will take us 99% of the way to avoiding declawing our cat. Please see this example Free Cat Scratching Post and this advice: Will my cat use a scratching post?

So what reason do the vets give for cat declawing? Answer: It saves lives. They argue time and time again in defence of an operation that is banned in over 30 western countries that the operation saves lives. A new country is about to join them: Banning Declawing in Israel.

They argue that if the cat is not declawed the owner will abandon the cat. This is emotional blackmail isn't it? And it simply misses the real point. That cat owners who need to declaw their cat before acquiring it should not really adopt a cat at all. Or as mentioned they should explore alternatives. The vets also like to muddy the water by introducing distorted so called "facts" about the consequences of cat declawing. Their purpose is to reassure the cat owner. Please be aware of this. And please note that laser declawing is not what it is made out to be by the vets. Vets like to fudge the reality and they even deceive themselves.



Vid above: Vet presenting the usual reassuring blurb to adoring customer! There are actually some vets who never declaw. There are not that many but I have listed them and mapped their location on this page: North American Veterinarians Who Never Declaw - please use them if you can.

People who declaw shamelessly declare that their sofa is more important than the cat and it has to be declawed to protect the sofa. At least that is honest. The vets, I regret to say aren't when in comes to cat declawing.

I don't think a piece of furniture is more important than a living creature. If a person thinks that they can't be the ideal cat caretaker can they?

See over 150 visitor articles on declawing cats.



From Cat Declawing to Home Page

Laser Cat Claw Removal

I know people search for "laser cat claw removal" because I use software that tells me what people search for on the internet. In fact the software tells me the exact words used.

In this case the words tell us clearly that people are still unclear as to the exact nature of the declaw operation. Vets misleading the public is one reason. Another is a simple lack of knowledge.

Poster by Ruth

"Claw removal" indicates that the public think that the claw is removed. In one video a vet used the word "nail". Hear him speak by clicking on the following link:

Revealing: Declawing Vet Talks About Declawing - (the soundtrack from this video is on this page. It is revealing on the mentality of the US veterinarian).

The linked page is an example of how vets downplay the operation, making it sound much less onerous and painful than it really is.

I think that this behavior from the veterinarians is deliberate. After all declawing cats is a very profitable part of a vet's work. Twenty million cats have been declawed we are told. If it is not vets deliberately misleading their clients it is vets deceiving themselves.





The operation is neither the removal of the claw nor the nail but the last phalange of the toe that supports the claw. This is equivalent to the removal of the last joint of our hands.

I hope that the people searching for "laser cat claw removal" read this post. They should also realise that laser declawing is no better than any other form of declawing. The vet I refer to above who called the cat's claw a "nail" admits that laser declawing is not his preferred method because the burnt skin fails to heal as fast as it would with a surgical cut. That said, let's make note of the fact that the cut is across the tendons and structures that hold the last phalange of the cat's toe to the other.

So, all in all, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that declawing cats is a brutally unnecessary operation on usually ten toes - that makes ten amputations. Do you think the cats feels pain after that? And for what? To save some furniture from a bit of scratching, if that.

Please see over 140 pages on this subject here:

Declawing Cats



From Laser Cat Claw Removal to Home Page

Declawing Cats: An International Viewpoint

It occurred to me today that there is an important international viewpoint to declawing cats that should not be overlooked. American is the home of declawing. Please note this is not a knock the USA dialogue, far from it. It is simply stating fact. I have no criticism of the Americans - none. We are all human!

America is both the home of declawing and the leading nation on the planet. Where they lead others follow, including the UK. And there are a number of fast developing nations such as India and China and indeed many more who are rapidly becoming westernised. Well China is not becoming westernised but it is becoming relatively wealthy.

It is not unreasonable to speculate that countries that are growing and becoming more integrated into the world economy might adapt the concept that declawing is something that is acceptable as, after all, the mighty USA do it.

In other words the leader should set a good example and they are categorically not doing that. They are setting a bad example. An example as to how not to relate to the domestic cat.

This is quite worrying because if veterinarians in say India get on the declawing gravy train now it will simply be the formation of another culture where the domestic cat is treated like an inanimate object to modify at will. At the moment places like India are a blank slate in terms of what is wrong about declawing. It is essential, I feel, that they learn the correct attitude to declawing to prevent it catching on.

Just a thought. Declawing cats has an international context.



From Declawing Cats: An International Viewpoint to Home Page

Piercing the bodies of cats is illegal but not declawing!

Yes, piercing the bodies of cats is illegal but not declawing! This raises some serious questions of the consistent application of the criminal laws of the USA. Here is the story.

A person decided to take three stray cats, make body piercings of the cats (modern thing this) in the ears, neck and tail.

She used sterilised equipment and did it carefully and without malice. The intention was to sell them as gothic kittens.

OK its sad and sick. Well it is from my standpoint. But why is she being prosecuted for animal cruelty when people who with the assistance of vets declaw their cats (a far more damaging process) and away get of scot free every time, millions of times?

We are talking about northeastern Pennsylvania but that is not really relevant.

I think the reason is this. She damaged a cat's tail in the process (actually see docked it). But the difference is very fine indeed between this and declawing cats.

In one article I say that declawing is deemed legal because the cat has no individual rights (and needs an advocate) but in this case the stray cats were adopted by the person concerned and therefore it could be argued that the person did it to her own cats. I do a follow up page on this here:
 
No laws against cat tail docking.

Is this any different to cat microchips that are implanted in the skin of cats? Some of these cats develop cancer and die.

Conclusion: She will not be found guilty although she should. It indicates the confused state of US animal cruelty laws in respect of declawing, in my view.



From Piercing the bodies of cats is illegal but not declawing! to Home Page

Retired Vet Says Declawing is Horrible

A retired Vet says declawing is horrible -- Yes, we are at last beginning to get the truth from veterinarians who have so callously and cynically misrepresented the effects of declawing on cats.

At the recent Berkeley City Council meeting to decide whether there should be a ban on declawing (which did in fact result in a ban) retired veterinarian, Jean Hofve, says that she regrets the time that she declawed hundreds of cats.

She described the procedure as "horrible, cruel and inhumane". She also said that it is unconscionable to cause a cat to bite more readily, which is one of the behavioral effects of declawing. Thank you very much for doing the right thing in speaking up for declawing. It is very refreshing to hear a vet tell it as it is and not give us the usual mumbo jumbo.

Of course the California Veterinary Medical Association wheeled out one of their spokesmen, this time it seems Dr. Nunez was not there (it seems), to say the same old platitudes that a ban would take away decision making from the vet and client.

That is the whole point. Decision making has to be taken away from the veterinarian because they have routinely over decades made the wrong decisions. They cannot be trusted to make a decision that is for the cat's well being, which they are obviously under oath to do.

So the public through their representatives at Berkeley City Council banned declawing. That as far as I remember makes 6 cites that have banned it in California to beat the ridiculous deadline imposed by state wide legislation that forbids cites passing such legislation after Jan 1st 2010.

These cities including Berkeley have now all voted to ban declawing of cats.

1. West Hollywood 2003
2. Santa Monica Oct 27th 2009, who voted 6 to 1
3. San Francisco November 3rd 2009, who voted 9 to 2
4. Beverly Hills November 5th 2009, who voted 5 to 0
5. The city of Los Angeles voted 11 to 0 November 6th 2009 to Ban Declawing of All Animals

I think the vets should start to get a bit scared. They now know officially that what they do is unacceptable. It is a massive slap in the face. Their credibility is being dramatically eroded. They say they are doctors. Doctors are meant to be admired, respected and looked up to but the greed of the vets in perpetuating and promoting the money spinner of declawing cats has undermined all that. They should be worried.

The veterinarian associations must begin to listen to what the people of California are saying and start to find alternative and honest means of generating revenue. It cannot be that hard to think of something that will substitute declawing and which is solely for the cat's welfare.

It is time the veterinarians stopped using their energy to justify the unjustifiably horrible and inhumane practice of declawing cats and start using it to make cats healthier.



From Retired Vet Says Declawing is Horrible to Home Page

Good Veterinarians Must Speak Out

The good veterinarians must speak out. What I mean is that the veterinarians in America who do see the cruelty in declawing cats and who do not carry out the operation need to provide courses and educational seminars for the public about declawing.

I don’t see this happening. I can understand why. It is totally understandable. They are in the minority and they might (probably would) alienate other vets. They might become outsiders in their own profession.

---

See lots more articles on why declawing is fundamentally wrong: Declawing Cats

---

And it is far better financially speaking to remain inside the group. But and this is a massive but, the good veterinarians who don’t speak out and try in a decent way to stop declawing, are undermining their own consciences. Indirectly, they are condoning it. In regards to such a profoundly abusive medical procedure as non-therapeutic declawing of cats the good and enlightened veterinarians who genuinely have the care of animals at heart (unlike the monsters who declaw) owe a duty to their patients to speak out.

This could, for example, take the form of giving seminars. Why not? The vet could charge a modest fee and present the facts about declawing to owners who were thinking of declawing their cats. There must be a large number of people who are unsure about it who simply need some clear guidance.

There is a lot of misinformation out there and very little really good research. All the vet has to do is to present the known facts, which can be summarised as follows:

Declawing is unnecessary. There is lots of evidence that tells us it can cause serious medical complications but we need further sound and objective research. Because of the real potential to cause short and long term complications that are unpredictable for any individual cat a vet should not carry out the procedure. The better course of action is to respect the cat for what he or she is and adapt to the cat’s behaviour and enjoy that behaviour. If that cannot be contemplated another animal as a companion should be chosen.

It a few hundred vets started educating the public about declawing by telling the truth (I am not asking vets to do what the AVMA does and peddle half truths and misrepresentations) then the gradual change away from this hideous practice would begin.

In lieu of that the only force for change can come from legislators who ban declawing at the local level - for example the West Hollywood ban. Come on good veterinarians you must speak out. The cat is looking to you for help.

From Good Veterinarians Must Speak Out to Home Page

AVMA Misrepresents the Reasons for Declawing

Here is correspondence between a colleague of mine, Susan Woodhouse, and the AVMA in 2007. This is correspondence about surveys on declawing. The AVMA muddy the declawing surveys to suit their objectives and misrepresents the reasons for declawing. The true AVMA reason is to continue the practice for financial profit. However, one consistent argument that the AVMA puts forward for declawing is that it prevents relinquishment of the cat and therefore saves lives. This is incorrect. In addition to the arguments presented by Susan below please also see, Declawing kills more cats…. Susan says:

..note they cite a study where 1 in every 3 declawed cats having a behavioral problem is not "statistically significant" to matter! And another study where vets were asked to "guess" how many of their clients would relinquish without declaw! Absolutely NO protection, voice, or justice for our fellow felines!

ME (Susan Woodhouse):
AVMA, Regarding the statement, "Scientific data does indicate that cats that have destructive clawing behavior are more likely to be euthanized, or more readily relinquished, released, or abandoned, thereby contributing to the homeless cat population", I was wondering if you could provide me with the scientific data that you've found that cat scratching leads to relinquishment, etc for research for a declaw website that I am working on. I have only found that, according to the “Top Ten Reasons for Pet Relinquishment to Shelters in the United States" survey done by the NCPPSP, destructive behavior / scratching is not listed as a reason cats are relinquished from their homes http://www.petpopulation.org/topten.html but “house soiling , a common behavioral effect of broken down, declawed paws, is listed as a prime reason for disposing of a pet cat. This survey seems more reasonable since it is much easier to curtail natural scratching (trimming, training, Soft Paws) than it is litterbox issues.

AVMA:
We are in the process of completing and getting ready for publication a very extensive review of the peer-reviewed literature pertaining to onychectomy in cats. Part of the reason for doing this extensive review is frustration with all the misinformation that has been presented with respect to this procedure (on both sides of the fence). With respect to your specific questions regarding relinquishment and objectionable behaviors…the following information may be of value. Please understand that this information only touches the tip of the iceberg of what information is available.

1. Relinquishment… In a 1991 survey of Ontario veterinarians (Landsberg, 1991) respondents indicated that approximately 50% of their clients would no longer own their cat if it had not been declawed. A comprehensive review performed by Patronek also showed that unacceptable behaviors increase risk of relinquishment to shelters (Patronek, 1996). Daily scratching was shown to increase risk of relinquishment, and declawing to decrease risk of relinquishment.
2. House soiling… A survey of 57 owners of onychectomized or tenectomized cats reported that 3 of 18 (16%) ten ectomized and 13 of 39 (33%) onychectomized cats developed at least one behavioral change following surgery (including house soiling, increased frequency or intensity of biting, or refusal to cover feces), but the difference was not statistically significant (Yeon, 2001). Six of 39 (15%) onychectomized cats house-soiled following onychectomy (Yeon, 2001); however, because the overall incidence of house-soiling in cats (clawed and declawed) has been reported to be 16% (Morgan, 1989) there does not appear to be an increased risk of house-soiling following onychectomy. The study addressing risk factors for relinquishment of cats to animal shelters (Patronek, 1996) did not identify a statistically significant difference in aggression or inappropriate elimination between declawed and clawed cats.

ME:
THANK YOU for taking the time to respond to my question. I really appreciate it because I know how busy you must be. I reread the studies you sited in your response, and found some interesting points, such as in Dr. Patronek study where he found that in the multi-variate analysis, declawing was associated with increased incidence of relinquishment and in the Landsberg study where it said only 4% of the cat owners themselves said they would have relinquished their cat if it wasn't declawed, versus the 50% that Dr. Landsberg guessed in the survey.

I believe this is the exact kind of frustrating misunderstanding of this issue that you referred to in your email! I'm so glad to hear the AVMA is taking a serious look at cat declawing because much of the public is becoming disheartened & disillusioned since declawing is being sold as routine cat care by so many veterinarians, and even included in "preventive health care" packages like Banfield is doing, with absolutely no education being given to the human client about how natural & normal scratching is for felines, the short & long term realities of the surgery, and the easy alternatives that allow humans & cat claws to coexist without any scratched flesh or furniture.

I'm hoping the AVMA knows of any studies/surveys of vets documenting the number of cat parents (who requested declaw) who were sent home on a "30 day waiting period" so to speak, with education about the surgery and the alternatives, and who actually came back for surgery versus how many were educated & enlightened. Or studies of actual numbers of cats that were truly relinquished because a vet refused to perform the surgery. I'm also trying to find how much more financial profit vets make when they don't declaw cats and sell regular nail trims over the life of the cat, plus sell nail trimmers, cardboard scratch pads, etc out of their offices. Do you know of any statements or studies that contain this information? I can't find any.

Also, I found 2 other studies/surveys done in 2000 about how many cats are relinquished due to litter box problems with HUGE statistical differences than those relinquished for claw issues. These both confirm that litterbox issues are the number one behavioral reason cats are relinquished from the home. It seems to me that, considering the anecdotal evidence that declawing increases the likelihood of litter box problems, and these high percentages of cats relinquished because of house soiling behavior, veterinarians have even more reason to discourage the surgery and counsel/educate their human clients about the humane alternatives if keeping the cats from being relinquished from their home is truly their goal.

According to "Behavioral Reasons for Relinquishment of Dogs and Cats to 12 Shelters" (Salman, Hutchinson, & Ruch-Gallie) in the Journal Of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2000, "soils house" was the #1 reason cats were relinquished from the home, and "aggression toward people" was #3.

1. Soils house=43.2%,
2. Problems between new pet & other pets=18.9%,
3. Aggressive toward people=14.6%
4. Destructive inside=12.4%,
5. Aggressive toward animals=12.4%,
6. Bites=9.2%,
7. Disobedient=5.9%,
8. Euthanasia for behavioral reasons=5.4%,
9. Unfriendly=5.4%,
10. Afraid=3.8%

According to "Reasons for Removing a Cat from the Household" (Ralston Purina 2000) as tabled in the article "Indoor Cats, Scratching, and the Debate over Declawing: When Normal Pet Behavior Becomes a Problem" (Grier & Peterson), The State of the Animals III:2005, "Eliminating Outside the Litterbox" was the #1 reason cats were relinquished from the home, and "biting people" was #2.

1. Eliminating Outside the Litterbox=33%,
2. Biting People=14%,
3. Intolerant of Children=11%,
4. Scratching People=11%,
5. Destroying Household or Personal Items=8%

p.s. Regarding the Landsberg study that you mentioned...if the AVMA considers this survey as scientific evidence where vets were asked to guess how many of their clients would relinquish their cats if they weren't declawed, wouldn't it be fair to amend your position statement where you state there is "no scientific evidence that declawing leads to behavioral problems" and include the national shelter survey information that says 70-80% of cats relinquished with stated behavioral problems are declawed?

Even vets like Dr. Patronek have stated in JAVMA "Some cats may also exhibit behavior problems in the longer term, including soiling and aggression. We have no idea what the frequency of this is, or how to identify cats at risk". There are many vets, and many humane shelter workers, cat consultants, cat parents, and animal behaviorists coming up with this same conclusion - declawed cats use their teeth more and their litterbox less!

From AVMA misrepresents reasons for declawing to home page

See also: Declawing Cats for lots more links and AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats

Banfield Veterinary Group Policy on Declawing

The Banfield Veterinary Group Policy on Declawing is inhumane, horribly wrong, misleading and a denial of the truth. It should be brought up to date immediately. Their policy is to condone declawing of cats for non-therapeutic purposes (to stop the cat scratching the furniture). Kim Van Syoc, Senior Communications Specialist for Banfield tells us the reason for their policy, which I summarise below (I cannot quote verbatim as it would be a breach of copyright so this is a fair and accurate summary but there is a link to the original About.com article just below).

---

The Banfield Policy:

Banfield perform declawing operations if they believe that a cat can't be trained to stop using its claws to scratch furniture or they pose a danger to family members. She says that not all cats are amenable to "behaviour modification". She says that fewer cats will be abandoned and euthanised if the cat is declawed. Recovery is very rapid, she says, leading to a stronger bond between cat and person. {note: Kim Van Syoc, Senior Communications Specialist for Banfield calls declawing "onchiectomy"}

---

This is totally misleading and simply incorrect. They follow the AVMA policy on declawing cats which is also wholly inhumane.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that onchiectomy is the castration of a man! It is not declawing which is onychectomy. If this is a direct quote from Miss Syoc, which I am told it is, then she doesn't know much about declawing does she? The original posting on About.com is here (new window). It may have been changed as a result of this article as it is very embarassing.

Secondly, the concept of training an animal to do what we want is incorrect. If we don't like what a cat does we shouldn't keep a cat - simple. That one act of not keeping a cat would reduce the feral cat problem massively over time. So vets encourage irresponsible ownership by declawing. They foster the idea and encourage the notion that we can modify a cat's anatomy to suit us. That debases the animal and leads to more abandonments and an arrogant approach to cat keeping that is wholly against the interests of the cat's wellbeing. Banfield, you are encouraging bad behaviour in people who keep cats. You encourage the wrong people to keep cats.

Question to Kim Van Syoc. Even on the basis that your policy is OK (which is obviously is not) how do you manage it? Do you ask people about how they tried to train their cat? No. Do you instruct them how to train their cat if what they are doing is incorrect? No. Do you even check if they are training their cat? No.

"Behaviour modification" needs to be directed at the people not the cat. It is the people who need to be trained. Trained to stop seeing the companion cat as a "possession" to do with as we please. These people are getting confused between a cat and a sofa. One is living and the other is dead. The former feels pain and the latter doesn't. Got it!

It is false to say that declawing prevents abandonment. This is just something the veterinarians peddle around the place to support their mutilation of companion cats. They use it as the main argument to justify this inhumane behaviour. In a scientific review of research into complications of declawing surgery it was found that:

"..........declawed cats were at an increased risk of relinquishment"

Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD: Assessment of claims of short- and long-term complications associated with onychectomy in cats.

Please read this Miss Kim Van Syoc: Declawing cat kills more cats.

Finally, there is no definitive scientific evidence (and vets must work from science and not hearsay) that cats recovery rapidly after declawing.

In conclusion Miss Syoc your arguments are worse than poor. They are misleading and the Banfield Veterinary Group Policy on Declawing results in the mutilation of innocent animals and encourages irresponsible cat ownership leading to more mass slaughter of unwanted cats that are already slaughtered by the millions in America every year.

July 29th 2010: Please sign the petition to change Banfield Veterinary Group Policy on Declawing - Petition



From Banfield Veterinary Group Policy on Declawing to Home Page

Declawing Cats Kills More Cats

The often repeated mantra of people who have their cats declawed is that it saves the lives of cats. Veterinarians also use this argument and probably (almost certainly) use it when justifying the unjustifiable, the declawing of a cat to prevent furniture being scratched. What they mean is that but for the declawing of cats, they would be given up and euthanized.

There are two counter arguments to this that come to mind. The first comes from a report that is available on the American Veterinary Medical Association website. It is a research project conducted by Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD called: Assessment of claims of short- and long-term complications associated with onychectomy in cats.

Dr. Patronek went over previous research projects to try and answer the question as to whether there were short and/or long term consequences of declawing of cats. In fact he found out that there was no research project that provided a clear picture, which meant that American veterinarians were carrying out a major and serious operation on the whim of the cat's owner with reckless disregard for the outcome - bizarre but true. I will take the liberty of quoting him verbatim:

It seems unthinkable that an elective surgery performed on a quarter of owned cats could lack definitive evaluation, but that appears to be the case. (2001)

However, the point I want to make is that in his review of the earlier research when a variety of factors are taken into account (called multivariate analysis - meaning multiple variables are taken into account when analyzing the findings) he states that:

"..........declawed cats were at an increased risk of relinquishment"

What he saying is that cats that were declawed were then at a greater risk of being given up to shelters. This is the exact opposite of the often quoted and false argument that declawing cats saves cat's lives.

Here is another point and this may be what Dr. Patronek's research was getting at. I say that declawing cats kills more cats. Lets assume that we wake up tomorrow and declawing is banned. A brave new world arrives. The people who have bought or adopted cats on the basis that they will have them declawed give up their cats. These are the people who feed the declawing business (a $20 billion dollar business by my reckoning). They want cats but don't want cats. They want an animal companion that looks like a cat but that does not act like one.

Immediately after a nationwide declawing ban there would be a huge number of cats given up. There are over 20 million declawed cats in the USA. Millions of cats would therefore be euthanized as a result of a declaw ban - initially that is. And this is the point. All the people who would have had their cats declawed (about 20 million of them) would no longer keep cats. We know that the people who request declawing are the wrong kind of people to keep cats - that must be a given. People who request declawing are prioritising furniture over the health and wellbeing of their cat. That shows us where their priorties lie. They are the kind of people who give up cats on a whim. They must be the kind of people who are more likely to give up their cat on the simple basis that they value furniture over the cat's health.

These irresponsible owners would be out of circulation. Over time the number of cats given up and then euthanised would be reduced dramatically. As about 2 or more million cats are euthanised each year in the USA, over time there would be considerably less cats killed. There is no doubt in my mind that declawing cats kills more cats as it feeds the concept that cats are inanimate objects to do with as we please. It creates a carelessness of ownership of cats. It devalues and debases cats and fosters irresponsible ownership which is the absolute underlying problem that faces us all in regard to the wholly unacceptable state of affairs that is the yearly mass slaughter of cats in America.

---

Note: As I have said previously, I have a high regard for America and the American people but I am justifiably critical of what I consider to be a blind spot for the American people - the declawing of cats for non-therapeutic purposes.

---

Note: the best way to introduce a ban on declawing would be gently and progressively, which is what may happen in any case. This would allow people time to adjust and there would be less cats given up. There would be a gradual change in culture that would help the cat companion.

See more articles on declawing cats.

From Declawing Cats Kills More Cats to Home Page

No Definitive Evaluation of Declawed Cats

I talked about this in passing on this page: Declawing kills more cats than saves them. Here, I discuss the fact that there is no definitive evaluation of declawed cats in more detail. Shocking as it sounds, at 2001 (and I believe it is still the case) there was no definitive scientific evaluation of the short and long term complications associated with the declawing of cats. What I mean is that veterinarians in America have no clear, scientifically based idea whether the declawing operations that they routinely perform in the tens of millions causes short or long term health problems. Staggering but true.

Of course there is a pile of anecdotal evidence and vets have some ideas of their own (always biased I would say, if they declaw) but there is no sound and reliable survey in existence upon which a decision could be made by the American Veterinary Medical Association or individual vets whether to operate or not. In short all the veterinarians in America who carry out the operation act recklessly in performing a brutal operation for the convenience of the owner without being able to formulate an assessment as to the medical effects and risks, which by the way are all extremely negative.

That must be a act of mass medical negligence. Responsible medical personnel should never perform medical procedures without knowing the risks. That is obvious but the American vets do not know the full risks because they do not understand the full extent of the complications. The information for what I have said comes from a research paper on the AVMA website entitled: Assessment of claims of short- and long-term complications associated with onychectomy in cats - by Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD. It might be fair to say that his conclusion came as a surprise to him. He says this at the end of the article:

"It seems unthinkable that an elective surgery performed on a quarter of owned cats could lack definitive evaluation, but that appears to be the case."

"Unthinkable" means, "Impossible to imagine; inconceivable"....Is this a criticism of the AVMA? You bet it is. The AVMA is presiding over a state of affairs in relation to the declawing of cats that is impossible to imagine by any right minded person and this assessment is on the AVMA website.

He did, however, go over a mass of data all of which was almost inconclusive at a scientific level, he said, but which nonetheless points to some real post operative problems, which I touch on below.....

---

Note: People will say that if there is no definitive scientific research on the complications of declawing sugery how can people like myself say it is bad. Well, this is the answer. Firstly, there has been research and it points to the fact that serious complications exist. The author of the report mentioned above concludes:

"The most that can be said about adverse behavioral sequelae to onychectomy is that they remain as hard to dismiss as they are to quantify."

In other words he is saying that we cannot say that there are no adverse complications. Secondly, as a matter of pure commonsense if an animal has the tips of their toes removed by a knife (usually) and given large amounts of pain killers afterwards it can be concluded that there will be a lot of healing to do over a long period of time. It is major surgery causing a very serious injury. What people like me say is that to put an animal through that for the sake of a piece of furniture that might well be thrown out before the cat dies is madness.

The act of declawing is nicely described by the dictionary definition of "to mutilate", which is this:

• To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
• To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
• To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

I have quoted the thefreedictionary.com (I hope they will excuse me if it is a minor breach of copyright).

Thirdly, it is not for us, the people who object to declawing to prove that it is wrong at a scientific level. It is for the perpetrators to prove that it is acceptable. The onus falls on them to carry out all the research before the procedure is accepted. They are the "doctors" who do the mutilation. They have to justify it and act professionally. Fourthly, there are a significant number of owners who requested and got declawing and who regretted it. Over 5% had a negative attitude about 9 months after surgery - remember that this is from people who favour declawing. If there are 22.5 million declawed cats and 2 cats per household that makes 11.25 million owners requesting declawing of which more than 500,000 would report problems 9 months after surgery (if the survey could extend to such a sample size).

---

A small selection of summarised findings of the report, Assessment of claims of short- and long-term complications associated with onychectomy in cats - by Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD.. The reason why the selection is small is because the findings are not precise enough. You can see the whole report here - (it will cost you $15)

1. Declawing is a common elective procedure. About 25% of all domestic cats at least are declawed. If there are 90 million cats that makes 22.5 million cats that have been mutilated.
2. The author says that the AVMA takes "a cautious approach". How can this be? The author concludes that vets carry out declawing not knowing what the consequences will be. Isn't that reckless rather than cautious?
3. As at 2001 in respect of a study on adverse behavioural outcomes of declawing cats it was found that:

• biting was reported for about 12% of declawed cats
• house soiling was reported for about 25% of declawed cats (is this why declawed cats are given up? - Declawing Kills More Cats)

The author says that veterinarians are well aware that declawed cats suffered unrelieved pain in the past (all that pain for what?). Modern techniques "substantially reduce"....pain. But by how much and what about the long term pain? Do we know if the cat is feeling pain?

The author says that information on the long term behavioural outcomes of declawing cats is desperately needed. That was in 2001. It has not happened to the best of my knowledge. Wrong? Please tell me. If research has been conducted it has been buried and if that is the case it would be an horrendous indictment of the callous and cavalier approach that the AVMA has towards the domestic cat. There is still no definitive evaluation of declawed cats.




From No Definitive Evaluation of Declawed Cats to Home Page

AVMA Veterinarians Admit Declawing is Inhumane

AVMA Veterinarians Admit Declawing is Inhumane by implication. In a survey conducted some time ago (mid 1990s, it seems), domestic cat owners who had put their cats through declawing (onychectomy) or the procedure to stop the cat having use of its claws (tendonectomy), were asked questions after the operation. The purpose was to compare behavioral problems after the operation and the see what the owners thought of the operation. The survey sample was 18 cats that went through tendonectomy and 39 cats that had the tips of their toes removed (onychectomy). It was confirmed that the most common reason to put their cats through the operations was

"to avoid damage caused by the cat scratching household materials. Avoidance of injury to humans or animals was chosen more often by owners whose cats underwent onychectomy than those that underwent tendonectomy"

The fact that furniture is more important to these people than their cats shows how ridiculous the AVMA policy on declawing is and that declawing in the US is almost always done for non-therapeutic reasons (meaning for the benefit of the person not the cat). The policy states:

"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)."

It seems therefore that these people had tried to prevent their cats from scratching. The policy is drafted so widely that it is hopeless, worse it is a sham. Under the policy a person can try for a couple of minutes on two occasions and pass the test. The survey results say that,

"Significant differences were not detected regarding behavior problems after surgery......Although tendonectomy and onychectomy involved some medical complications and behavior changes following surgery"

This means that there were behavioral problems doesn't it? So much for the arguments by countless thousands of people who put their cats through this cruel procedure who say my cats fine after the operation. Vets admit that there are "some complications." Finally the report concludes (as this report is on the AVMA website):

"Tendonectomy may be a humane alternative to onychectomy...( J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;218:43–47)"

So cutting pieces of tendon out of the cat (Tendonectomy) is a humane alternative to removing the tips of the toes (how bizarre is that by the way?). By implication this clearly states that declawing is inhumane. And as this is a survey published on the AVMA website, it is an open admission that their veterinarians are behaving in an inhumane way on a regular basis in defiance of common decency and against the interests of their patients.

   

From AVMA Veterinarians Admit Declawing is Inhumane to Home Page

Why I declawed My Cat

This is why I declawed my cat. I’m fed up with being told I am a monster when I am not. I love my cats. I had lots and I had them all declawed because I think it is a helpful thing. It makes the cat more liveable with, doesn’t it?

I looked after them really well after surgery and they did great. I can’t see anything different. Yeh, I changed the litter to a paper litter that you can buy in pet stores which helps. But you anti-declawers are all PC. You’ve never lived with cats, have you?

A lot of cats are left to die in SPCA because people can’t live with their furniture being wrecked. If you cat lovers would stop having a go at people like me who sees the practical side then maybe more cats would be re-homed from cat shelters and loved and cared for. Why don’t you cat lovers show pictures of cats being euthanized at cat shelters? Isn’t that lots worse?

Sure declawing can be done badly but my vet is good and he recommends it. I just take good advice. What am I supposed to do. I look to my vet to give me the best advice and I think he does. My cats still have their paws to walk on. Amputation would leave her nothing to walk on. She just has no paws so when she plays rough she dont scratch me. Or scratch my dry wall when she is done with the litter box.

Look, its not something I wanted to do but I am not giving my cat up to someone who lets her keep her claws that she didn’t need anyway. Shes an indoor cat. Why does she need claws. Animals adapt well to the change and in no time act like nothing happened to them.

And anyway I have a baby and I'm frightened she will scratch my baby’s face and eyes. Cats are unpredictable particularly with children. Cats don’t need their front claws for balance. My cats walk fine without claws.

Anyway how can people agree to spaying and neutering and hate declawing. I don’t understand. Neutering is removing internal organs isn’t it? There is pain with that too.

Also I have declawing done before she was 2 and i was told that’s OK by my vet. It doesn’t cause any personality change. I just think that anti declaw people show us the worst cases, Not all cats have terrible experiences. Mines an indoor cat so it won’t need to defend itself. he walks fine and stretches and he is not changed.

If you think it is horrible it is your business. I don’t think that most anti declawers have cats. How do you know. You are just guessing. I could not have a cat unless it was declawed and anyway it saves lives. It saves me time and energy. Declawing does not cause arthritis. There is no proof that it does. It doesn’t make sense. I am sure it doesn’t cause psychological damage. It is just laughable what people say.

You guys who hate declawing make a drama about it. They heal in a week anyway. And to say that in some countries is is banned or illegal is irrelevant. If you think they care more in those countries well they eat them so why bother declawing!

----- this is a submission about why I declawed my cat by a visitor to this site and does not reflect the views of the site owner.

From why I declawed my cat to home page

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