Short Legs of Dwarf Cats

The short legs of dwarf cats are thought to be due to pseudoachondroplasia a type of short-limb dwarfism. It affect people as well. The prefix “pseudo” is used as the affects of this genetic mutation is not the same as achondroplasia dwarfism. The difference (as I mention on the dwarf cat health issues page) is that while pseudoachondroplasia is characterised by short limbs and a normal head, achondroplastic dwarfism is characterised by short legs and an enlarged head.

I don’t know how settled the assessment of the genetic mutation is dwarf cats is. But I do know that recent research has uncovered the cause of the canine equivalent of the dwarf cat, the dachshund.

Research indicates that the short legs of the dachshund (a dog with a normal body and head like dwarf cats and short legs) are due to the mutation, thousands of years ago, of a single gene.

The American National Human Genome Research Institute discovered that all short-legged purebred dogs carried an extra copy of a gene that codes for a “growth-promoting protein called fibroblast growth factor 4 (FGF4)”. This gene is thought to be, “a retrogene that was inserted into the dog genome some time after the ancestor of modern dog breeds diverged from wolves.”

Its presence results in the overproduction of the FGF4 protein, which is believed to switch on growth receptors at the wrong time during foetal development. This in turn causes the legs to be short and out of proportion.

The question I have is whether this research has any bearing on the creation of the short legs of dwarf cats? Answers would be welcome and can be submitted, please, on a form at the base of the Dwarf Cats and Miniature Cats page.

From the Short Legs of Dwarf Cats to Dwarf Cats and Miniature Cats

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

Veterinarians' Arguments for Declawing

On reading letters from veterinarians to the council of the City of Berkeley, California, in support of not banning declawing in late 2003, I note that Veterinarian's arguments for declawing include the following:

1. Decisions on declawing should be made between the veterinarian and the client and without interference from legislators.
2. If cats were not declawed there would be more abandonment and euthanasia of cats because, for example, immuno-suppressed people "can have an increased risk of infection from a simple cat scratch" or "scratches can be harmful to the frail and elderly"
   
3. People accept cat neutering and spaying which is more invasive (so one vet said) so why can't we accept declawing.

The Cat Fanciers Assocation says that the "majority of American veterinarians perform declawing surgery, either routinely suggesting it to clients or as a last resort for cats that would otherwise be euthanized.."

---

Please Note: I like America and Americans but strongly dislike the culture of declawing. 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 disrespectful of our cat companions - worse, much worse.

---

Note: As I understand it the Supreme Court of America has since 2003 allowed the ban on declawing to proceed in Berkeley as it was claimed to be against the freedom to conduct business.

I would like to address the above arguments:

Decisions on declawing should be made between the veterinarian and the client and without interference from legislators.

Yes, in an ideal world the above statement is true but American Veterinarians have in general shown themselves to be incapable of behaving morally in respect of declawing and are frequently in breach of their code of ethics and oath in this regard. As the American Veterinary Medical Association policy of declawing cats actively, by implication, promotes poor behaviour by vets in relation to declawing of cats there is no other course of action to protect cats from the criminal acts of declawing other than the outright banning of it. And we should all praise and commend the council members and major of Berkeley for being enlightened and courageous enough to see this legislation through. Well done. See: American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat, AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats, Psychology of Declawing. Note: to describe declawing as a "criminal act" is not a biased, subjective or emotional statement but one made in the cold light of the fact that it is exactly that in many countries in Europe, where it is banned. What happened to America?

If cats were not declawed there would be more abandonment and euthanasia of cats

This might be correct but the argument is based on two wrongs making a right and we all know that that is not a good argument. There is a counter argument. Cats that are declawed can and do suffer from behavioral problems such as urinating outside the litter box. This behavior can and probably will lead to cats being relinquished.

In any event, the answer is not in compounding the victimisation of the humble and silent cat companion by killing it because it doesn't fit in (because it is scratching - a natural act), but to better train and educate people to make proper decisions in relation to whether they should keep cats. If all people made decisions as to whether they should keep a cat on the basis that it would be kept intact (and not declawed) then the decision would be made on a sound basis.

If the answer is to not keep a cat that might initially result in more cats in rescue homes but you can't make a right by adopting mutiple wrongs. There has to be a return to sound fundamentals and then the problems of over breeding of cats and feral cats will gradually be resolved. Declawing actually encourages the breeding of cats because it allows people who would not normally keep cats to adopt a declawed one. A person who insists on declawing must be unsuitable to keep a cat because the relationship is based at the outset on the human companion brutally assaulting the cat companion. What kind of relationship is that?!

Unfortunately millions of cat keeping people in America see no problem with declawing. This, I argue is the result of years of indoctrination by American veterinarians insidiously conditioning the public into believing that it is acceptable and pain free bla, bla, bla.

Immuno suppressed people and frail people shouldn't keep cats if it is dangerous as vets seem to say.

People accept cat neutering and spaying which is more invasive so why can't we accept declawing

This sounds like a reasonable argument until you think about it. One way to look at it is to refer to humans. We accept sterilisation of ourselves in many millions because it is a practical way of dealing with a flawed situation. It is the best compromise. Globally one fifth of married couples rely on the sterilization of the female as a birth control measure. In places like India and China the figure is higher at 33% of married couples (Earth Policy Institute).

The best practice way of dealing with and managing the cat population is through sterilisation. The procedure has a profound and important purpose and we do it to ourselves as I said.

99.9% of the time declawing has no purpose other than to protect a person's personal possessions! This is not a good reason. Plus we do not do it to ourselves (amputate the top joint of each finger) as we know it is totally unacceptable. The thought of it is bizarre. We should not do to cat companions what we would not do to ourselves.

I am surprised that educated veterinarians can make such ill conceived arguments in favour of declawing. Perhaps, though, it is not surprising as they were desperately searching for arguments to justify the unjustifiable and they themselves (in large numbers) are also conditioned into believing it is alright. Veterinarians' arguments for declawing are weak and flawed.



From Veterinarians' Arguments for Declawing to Home Page

A Cat Hater and Shooter

I have just found a bona fide American cat hater and shooter. Here he is in a video made by a friend by the look of it. There are cat haters the world over. But the lax American gun laws means that there is probably a greater likelihood of an American shooting a cat than in Europe. Australia is similar to America it seems on shooting cats as it is legal and encouraged in some states (Ground Shooting of Feral Cats). In the UK it is rarely done and illegal although there are airgun attacks and too many of them.

---

Please note: This posting is not an attack on America or the American people. That might be obvious. But a criticism of an individual who is a danger to cats. It is also a criticism of irresponsible cat ownership. I like America but everything that goes on there is not good. The same applies to all countries. This site always supports the cat and looks at the world from that standpoint.

---

This person has an air rifle or spring rifle. He proudly shows off to the camera how skilled he is with it. If you can understand him, he constantly says how he would like to shoot a cat, how he hates cats and how he has kicked a cat. He seems to hate a lot of things and takes pleasure in venting that hatred out on cats.

There an overriding sense from this video that he is your classic cat hating shooter! It is all that ignorance and violence coming out in front of the camera.

What he completely fails to understand is that it is irresponsible people like him who create the feral cat problem. The cat is simply the innocent pawn or victim in the casual carelessness of so many people who lack a moral compass and even simple common sense.

If he loves to shoot things including cats, he should shoot the perpetrators of irresponsible behaviour. I would hope that the person he shoots at is missed and shoots back. Maybe there would be an outcome beneficial to humanity and the victimised cat:


Backyard - The most amazing bloopers are here

This scruffy fool is a cat hater and shooter and I was keen to see one; to put a face to some people (a lot as far as I can see) who write on the forums about shooting cats. I have just read a forum on metafilter.com about shooting cats. It was a long dialogue, a ramble between, mostly, people who could justify shooting cats. And one even admitted to doing it and getting pleasure from it! He should be reported to the police but would they do anything? Of course not.

There are many aggressive and silly males who like to shoot cats. They justify it with all manner of wild and rash argument that is completely unsubstantiated such as they kill millions of birds. There is precious little scientific data on the impact of feral cats, or any cats, on bird populations. Scientific data points more to ground animals being killed as it is easier prey. Any excuse to kill a cat, it seems.

There is no doubt that many people, often the ignorant, who hate cats. It really is borne out of ignorance and training; being trained by a father and mother who were equally ignorant and so perpetuating this violence.



From A Cat Hater and Shooter to Home Page

Protect the Cats of Beverly Hills

This is a verbatim copy of an email from the Stray Cat Alliance on the matter of an ordinance (legislation) t0 stop decent people from feeding and treating humanely feral cats in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles. The Stray Cat Alliance asked that this: PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG - AUGUST 4, 2009 7:00 p.m. - NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO DETERMINE WHICH ORDINANCE WILL PASS VERY IMPORTANT WE SHOW UP AGAIN AND STOP CITY FROM ENACTING A BAN ON FEEDING AND/OR CRIMINALIZING FEEDING



Trap Neuter Return is a community problem and needs to be dealt with at a community wide level.

Before reading the following page, if you have no knowledge of this story:

HELP FIGHT BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE(opens in new window).

Here is the email. Please copy and republish if you can or wish. By implication it is licensed to be republished under a creative commons license - Attribution 2.0 Generic - simply give a credit to the authors, "Stray Cat Alliance":

............."Christi Metropole, SCA volunteers and advocates from other humane groups kept the Beverly Hills City Council Chambers going into the early morning hours on Tuesday, July 7, 2009 to prevent prior inhumane language denying the feeding of cats on public property from being reinstated into the Beverly Hills City Codes. The supporters were united in their goal to protect the cats of Beverly Hills and prevent their caregiver, Katherine Varjian, from being jailed for her responsible and compassionate care for cats in Beverly Hills over the past 12 years.

Stray Cat Alliance passed out red ribbons to all opponents of the ordinance. They wore them to signify their solidarity against this prejudicial language. The City Council heard complaints from residents who want a complete ban of feeding cats on public property. The 102 humane activists spent hours detailing their expertise and giving solutions to the real issue of a lack of a proper TNR ("Trap, Neuter and Return") program in Beverly Hills. Implementing this program along with proper care and adopting kittens and socialized cats from the colonies would ultimately resolve the propagation of cats around the glamorous residences of Beverly Hills. The City Council decided to table the vote until a new ordinance could be written and approved.

Christi Metropole is working with Marcia Hobbs of the Beverly Hills Courier, Beverly Hills city staff, the main complainant and representatives of humane organizations to create a positive solution before the August 4th, 2009 City Council meeting. The goal is to come up with a plan where there will be peaceful coexistence between local residents and stray and feral cats and their caregivers. The best solution would be a progressive ordinance that puts Beverly Hills at the forefront of the movement to institutionalize TNR as the most humane and effective manner of lowering the number of cats on the streets. While countless unsterilized or unmaintained cat colonies exist all over the city that never get the publicity or support, Beverly Hills takes issue over this small number of cats in a four block radius. These cats are the fortunate ones who have lived healthy lives due to Ms. Varjian's consistent care and TNR efforts. Due to harassment and threats, Ms. Varjian has been relegated to rapidly feeding and no longer spaying/neutering new cats which has resulted in new births. Now these animals' lives are in jeopardy.

Please assist SCA in this campaign to save the cats and promote TNR as a model program for solution in Beverly Hills.

ACTION: There will be a Beverly Hills City Council Meeting on August 4, 2009 to vote on the new proposed ordinance or adopt the old, draconian ordinance. Please be there.

If you live in the City of Beverly Hills, contact your mayor and city council members. If you know anyone who lives in Beverly Hills, please educate them on this issue and urge them to call the City Council and Mayor.

Mrs. Varjian will also be going back to court on August 7, 2009 for her hearing."

All caring people should Protect the Cats of Beverly Hills as it is a reflection on our humanity. It is how we are judged.



From Protect the Cats of Beverly Hills 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)