Email to vet re de-clawing

[Dawn (DiddyDawn)]

And I have to say that no matter how much I hate the idea of a healthy cat being pts because a home can't be found, we need to be careful of not falling into the trap where we consider any home better than no home.  Quality of life is important and cats don't have any concept of the future like we do.  They don't care how long they live - they live in the present.  In some cases being painlessly pts may be better for a cat than going to a home where the quality of life is severely compromised.

I agree 100%, I think if it's a toss of a life in pain or humanely pts, I know which option I would go for.

[Desley (booktigger)]

Susanne - there are leash laws in certain parts of the US, and if animals (cats and dogs) are seen without one, there are repercussions - so not sure about illegal, but certainly something that has an impact in areas.

[Susanne (urbantigers)]

I've read through your post properly today and I don't think there's much I can add to what has already been said.  There are quite a few points that he makes which I think are ludicrous but arguing against them is about as easy as arguing that the earth is round and not flat.  Some people are just not prepared to change their mind.

To specifically address some of his points:

I think the misinformation point he makes is actually quite insulting.  It isn't like there is a small number of "activists" who are opposed to declawing.  Millions of people worldwide are opposed to it.  Not only all the countries that have effectively outlawed declawing - list here http://www.declawing.com/htmls/outlawed.htm- - but there are many animal welfare organisations within the US that are against declawing.

http://www.pawproject.com/html/

And as mentioned previously, even the conservative AVMA says it should only be done after attempts have been made to prevent destructive scratching.  Cat owners in all those countries where it is banned seem to manage to live in harmony with their clawed cats.

I'm a member of a primarily US forum, and it's clear from a number of posters on there that many (most?) US vets neither explain to owners exactly what declawing involves nor discuss alternatives.  Frequently new posters ask about declawing and when they are informed of what it actually entails they are horrified and say they will not declaw.  Others already have declawed cats and admit that they didn't know what the procedure involved and would not declaw a cat again.  Most say it was suggested by their vet as part of a neutering package and that there was no actual discussion of whether it was necessary.  I can't know whether this particular vet you're corresponding with actually discusses the procedure with owners but perhaps you could ask him whether he suggests declawing or whether he only carries out the procedure if an owner requests it.  Also whether he actually discusses alternatives such as scratch posts (sometimes several are needed and some experimentation may be necessary to find out what kind of surface and location the cat likes) and soft claws.  Does he suggest things and then ask the owner to go away and try his suggestions?  Does he refer to a behaviourist if the cat is still scratching?  Or does he do the declaw straight off when someone says they have a problem with their cat scratching?  I don't see any mention of soft claws in the email.  Although I'm not too keen on them myself, they are obviously a better alternative to declawing and should limit any damage a clawed cat may do to furniture. 

The better than death argument I've already mentioned - I think it's nonsense.  It's like bribing people to take on cats.  What will these people do if their cat has a UTI or develops a behavioural problem and starts to wee outside the litter tray?  Or vomits on their new rug?  Will they abandon the cat?  Or have it pts?  Those who can't accept a cat for what it is really shouldn't have one in the first place, regardless of the over population problem.  Perhaps you could ask him whether he performs early neutering or whether he waits until 6 months.  Early neutering is a lot more common in the US than over here, but there are still lots of vets who won't do it until 6 months.  If he is in that group, then perhaps learning to do it sooner and offering his services to local rescues would do more to help the problem than declawing cats to get them a home.  You could also ask him how active he is in doing something about the problem of over population he seems so concerned about.  How proactive is he in edcucating the public about the importance of neutering?  Perhaps he could go to local schools and talk to the kids about the problem the US has with too many cats and too few homes and discuss the importance of neutering.  That approach is likely to do more to help the problem of so many homeless cats than removing the claws to find them homes with owners who won't tolerate scratching.

And I have to say that no matter how much I hate the idea of a healthy cat being pts because a home can't be found, we need to be careful of not falling into the trap where we consider any home better than no home.  Quality of life is important and cats don't have any concept of the future like we do.  They don't care how long they live - they live in the present.  In some cases being painlessly pts may be better for a cat than going to a home where the quality of life is severely compromised.

I don't know about his comment re fines in the US for allowing a cat outside.  Although indoor cats are the norm in many parts of the US, there are still many who let their cats go outside.  Is he saying it's actually illegal in some states to allow a cat to go outside?  Perhaps he could pass on the evidence regarding this as it's something I really don't know about.  But it is a bit of a red herring.  I'm not opposed to indoor cats as I keep mine indoors and an increasing number of owners over here are keeping their cats indoors.  But if we do that we have to provide alternative stimuli to make up for what they are missing.  I think a lot of cases of destructive scratching are a result of owners who aren't prepared to spend enough time and effort to keeping their cats happy and stimulated.  With all pets you need to give to the relationship as well as take.  Most of us get an enormous amount of pleasure from our cats.  It's not asking much that we give something back by respecting their natural behaviours and providing suitable outlets for them.

The neutering comparison you've pretty much answered.  I can't think of any other procedure that doesn't have some benefit for the cat.  Even keeping a cat indoors has benefits for the cat as it is safer inside where there are lots of risks outdoors.  I also think it's rather cruel to keep a cat intact and then not allow him/her to mate, and I assume this vet agrees that cats shouldn't be allowed to breed freely.  Declawing is the only surgery that is done 100% for the owner. 

[ccmacey]

And if the cat cant scratch you its going to use something else, its teeth!

Shame on the shallow souls that do this.

[Hippykitty]

What a great argument you put forward. His argument concerning cat scratches and immune deficient owners is rubbish. I have a condition call neutropenia, which is basically an immune deficiency due to low white blood cell count - caused by meds. My cats sometimes scratch in play or when I'm trimming claws or grooming. It hasn't made me significantly ill.

I was gobsmacked by his comparison between neutering and declawing! Neutering benefits the health of the cat, it's not just for our benefit. Neutered cats have fewer health risks.

All surgery is painful, as anyone who's had an op will know - it HURTS! Usually surgery is for the greater good, but declawing serves no purpose. If you value furniture so much, don't get any pet. What about the fur! Will US vets start waxing cats next! Slightly clawed furniture is a badge of honour imo.

Strengthening the human/cat bond? What cat will love you more for cutting off it's fingers!!! Grrrrr....

We, as humans, don't have a RIGHT to keep cats. It's an honour they pay us in sharing our homes.

So glad you had this reasoned debate with him, I would have found it hard to keep my temper.

[Gillian Harvey]

I used to have a grooming customer bring her two cats to me for grooming, one was declawed. The customer used to live in the US and the cat was declawed there (not by her, by previous owner) and she bought both cats back with her when she moved back to UK.

The declawed cat was one of the most reactive cats I've come across, you could barely touch her without getting bitten! although over a series of visits, I could slowly work on the coat. She apparently had all sorts of litter tray problems, because of over sensitive paws,  she walked awkardly and suffered from stiffness and pain in her joints because of it, so its not just the initial pain of the barbaric sugery like that vet said - it does cause long term problems.

[Desley (booktigger)]

In response to the neutering and spaying aspect (which so many pro declaw people use) - cats can and do die from being unneutered, they dont die from still having their claws, so there is a big difference between the two.
Very good arguments, the other ones to tackle on the issue are their equivalent to the RCVS, here is a link to a bit on their site, which has actually changed since the last time i read it, which is good - it is well worth reading, some of his points are contradicted when you read this.

http://www.acvs.org/AnimalOwners/HealthConditions/index.cfm?ID=2840&blnShowBack=False&idContentType=939

The American Veterinary Medical Association position statement on the declawing of domestic cats is: “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). The AVMA believes it is the obligation of veterinarians to provide cat owners with complete education with regard to feline onychectomy”.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association position statement is that the CVMA “recognizes that onychectomy is an option for domestic cats that would otherwise be denied a home or face euthanasia”. Declawing is not performed in Australia or the United Kingdom and has recently been banned in West Hollywood, California and in the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador. The procedure is controversial because it is a surgical procedure that is performed with no direct health benefit to the cat. Another point of view is that in some cases, destructive cats are not considered acceptable pets and will be euthanized or abandoned without declawing.

[DaveD]

Here's another link, which includes a Hall of Fame, as well as a Hall of Shame.
http://community-2.webtv.net/zuzu22/STOPDECLAWCOM/

[Susanne (urbantigers)]

Just to add a link to a site about declawing which may help

http://www.declawing.com/htmls/declawing.htm

esp this bit

The veterinary justification for declawing is that the owner may otherwise dispose of the cat, perhaps cruelly.  It is ethically inappropriate, in the long term, for veterinarians to submit to this form of moral blackmail from their clients.

   "The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to cosmetic surgeries and to those performed to correct 'vices.' Declawing     generally is unacceptable because the suffering and disfigurement it causes is not offset by any benefits to the cat. Declawing is done strictly to provide convenience for people. The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR)

Some veterinarians have argued that some people would have their cats killed if declawing was not an option. We should not, however, allow ourselves to taken 'emotional hostage' like this. If a person really would kill her or his cat in this case, it is reasonable to question the suitability of that person as a feline guardian, especially when there are millions of non-declawed cats living in harmony with people."

[Susanne (urbantigers)]

I don't have time to read that through right now but promise I will tomorrow!  Just posting to say that it might be a good idea to find statements etc by rescues and animal organisations (within the US and outside) that say they are against declawing so that you can name organisations that are opposed to declawing and want to get it banned.  I believe one of the US states has recently banned declawing?  Then ask this person why it is (effectively) banned in so many countries, and why so many organisations concerned with cat welfare are opposed to it.  Are the millions or people opposed to declawing all ignorant hysterics?  I think not.  The onus is on him to prove it causes no suffering (and that includes prventing a cat from carrying out it's natural behaviours) not on those opposed to declawing to prove there is no need.  Claws and scratching are incredibly important to a cat and to deny them the opportunity to indulge in this essential behaviour for anything other than medical reasons is totally unacceptable in my book (and in every one else's book on here I'd imagine!).

There was something on one of the anti declawing websites about the reasoning that it's better than putting a cat to sleep or abandoning it, and that excuse was described as emotional blackmail.  That excuse could be used to justify almost anything.  Would it be ok to keep a cat in a small cage all day because it was at least alive?  Or to amputate it's tail for no medical reason?  Or it's ears?  Of course not.  It's funny how those of use who live in countries where declawing isn't carried out manage ok!  And it isn't because most cats over here are indoor/outdoor as many of us keep our cats inside.  It's just never, ever acceptable to carry out surgery on a pet purely for the owner's benefit and that's what declawing for anything other than medical reasons is.  Aside from any behavioral problems or any pain, it's just unethical to do that to a cat.  I think that's actually the best approach.  Those who carry out the procedure may argue black and blue that it's not painful, doesn't cause behavioural problems etc and although I don't buy that it's hard for a lay person to argue against it.  But it's harder for those who defend declawing to justify why they think it's ok to deprive a cat of an essential behaviour to save the furniture.  Vets are supposed to care for animals and have their best interests at heart.  Those who declaw routinely are failing to do so and I certainly woudln't trust any such vet with my cats.

I'm ranting now!

edited to add - in response to his argument about the over-population you could point out that the answer there is early neutering to prevent it happening in the first place, rather than declawing in an attempt to get cats homes with people who don't respect cats the way god made them.  Proactive instead of reactive.

[Dawn (DiddyDawn)]

An excellant email and you've managed to put a really good argument forward    I do think although Declawing is an emotive subject, just because we are in the UK, it shouldn't be brushed under the carpet.......the animals can't speak for themselves, we have to do it for them and it's amazing what people can do to change things even if we are across the water.  I will have to ask my vet about his views on declawing, he is from the US but it's not something I've ever discussed with him.

The other places to target in the US are the Rescue Shelters.  I looked at a few a while ago, and they would have different charges for a cat with claws and then what they would charge to declaw    I did email a couple at the time and will have to have a look to see if I've still got their emails somewhere.

Well done anyway, very well written and hopefully it will give the vets something to think about 

[Catjane]

If any of you care to trawl through all of this, I have had a reply, and have replied to the reply!!  I have highlighted the vet's response in red and mine in blue.  Actually, PLEASE read it as I spent ages changing the colours!!

Very many thanks for your reply - I appreciate it as it is more than some vets bother with. I hoep you don't mind engaging in dialogue about this issue - my newest responses are in blue.

>
> However, I notice that, although you suggest alternatives to declawing - 'training' - you do not one bit try to discourage owners from having their cats declawed.  In fact, you make it sound as though it is very difficult to train a cat not to scratch the furniture.  You state:
>
> "however, it is popularly held that a number of adverse conditions result from declawing, that it is a form of mutilation. Pet owners need to sort out the facts from the rumors surrounding this procedure"
>
> This sounds as if you are suggesting that owners have been misled into thinking that declawing is mutilation.  It IS!!!!

They have been. I was once opposed to declawing until I actually saw it done, saw the results, actually gained experience with real patients (not just the activist literature). The misinformation surrounding this procedure is truly profound.

mu·ti·late
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.   to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.   to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
It is mutilation.

[Origin: 1525–35; < L mutilātus (ptp. of mutilāre to cut off, maim), equiv. to mutil(us) maimed, mutilated + -ātus -ate1]

I would be grateful if you could expand on what you mean by 'misinformation'.
> It is amputation, pure and simple.  Nothing more, nothing less.  How have we the right to keep a pet and then hack off part or all of its phalanges because its natural behaviour is inconvenient for us?  Tough.  Don't keep a pet.

Unfortunately there are thousands more cats thant there are homes for cats. I personally don't think that death or abandonment is a fair alternative to declawing. I also think that pets and owners should have loving relationships and the anger caused by this natural behavior can be very divisive. I believe this decision is up to the pet owner. Perhaps in the future when cats become more rare and one must qualify to own one, then we can be more picky about what a home should be like.

I really do not understand how people can be upset and damage their relationship with a cat if they REALLY want one, rather than something to decorate their home with (sorry I know I'm being harsh, but I'm telling it how I see it).  If you cannot love a pet unconditionally and without mutilating it then you do not love that pet.  What other things would such owners do to the animal if the cat does things that are inconvenient to them?  So you are saying that either the cats get mutilated, put to sleep, or left to roam?  And the big question ... WHY cannot the owners adapt to the cat's behaviour rather than operating on the animal so that it adapts to our soft furnishings?  Surely our furnishings are not as important to us as claws to a cat?  Isn't training people to train their cats a MUCH better alternative?

And a question here:  Would you chop off the ends of your children's fingers because they were picking up stuff you didn't want them to?  NO.  You would teach them not to pick up that stuff.
> This barbaric practice MUST stop!  In the UK, you would be arrested and sent to jail for doing such a thing

And in many U.S. cities you can be fined for allowing your cat outside. We have a different culture of cat ownership here. Good ownership means a100% indoor lifestyle here.

I do understand that.  But then why are there so many cats without homes in your country?  As you rightly point out later, here in the UK it is common for cats to be indoors/outdoors (usually with the aid of a cat flap).  So you would think that we'd be awash with strays, but we're not.  There are a number of them, of course, but the cat protection charities have a good programme for neutering ferals and returning them to the wild (although I understand that in the States cats are prey to other animals so of course this practice wouldn't always suit).  I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but to understand.

> - on three counts:  1) It causes unnecessary suffering;
There is should be no more than minimal discomfort associated with recovery and then no pain of any kind after recovery. It is common for activists to say that there is suffering involved with this surgery and this absolutely not true and part of what led me to suspect that I was receiving misinformation. What suffering is caused by this procedure? It is performed under anesthesia so there is no suffering there. Pain medications are given in recovery so there should be no suffering there either. Our declaw patients are often batting toys around the day after surgery.

Pain after surgery = suffering.  The procedure is unnecessary.

My sister in law lives in Georgia, US.  She was actively encouraged by her vet to have her cat declawed, being told that it was the 'usual procedure' and that it had no adverse effects on the animal.  She wishes she hadn't, now, as her cat has trouble running properly, is now timid, and doesn't play anymore.

> 2) It is mutilation;
Another word that should make you suspicious. What is the difference between surgery and mutilation? Are spay and neuter also mutilation? Why not? Why would these surgeries not be mutilation and declaw would be?

I'm not confusing surgery and mutilation.  Surgery may or may not be mutilation.  By that token, they cannot be the same thing.  They are different things.  Spaying and neutering, I agree, are a form of mutilation if we want to split hairs, but it doesn't potentially affect a cat's mobility or its behaviour (except of course, insofar as they no longer display mating behaviour).  These surgeries are done not for the owner's convenience (well, not usually!) but to prevent an overpopulation of cats and all the problems that that brings.  It is not ideal, I think, but in our human-dominated world is the best we can do under the circumstances.  I just wish we did not have to do this either.

Just a quick observation and something you might want to think about.  My best friend, sadly, had a horrific motorbike accident in which he lost his right leg and half his left thumb.  Quite frequently he has phantom pains, not only in his leg stump, but in his thumb stump too, and this is nearly three years after the surgery (it was cut off at the knuckle in the accident, and the surgeon had to amputate a little higher than that).  The pain is sometimes excruciating, and prevents him from using his 'thumblet' as I call it, the way he usually does.  My question is this:  how do you know that you are not putting cats through this pain for many years after their surgery?  Cats are notoriously 'quiet' about pain, so it may not always be obvious to the owner, and all the while the animal is suffering silently.
> and 3) it prevents the animal expressing its natural behaviour.
This is true but so does spay and neuter. The declawed cat still engages in marking with its feet, just not with its claws, and I am not convinced a cat knows the difference. No one seems to mind that neutering also stops marking with urine (also very natural behavior). The fact is that to have a rewarding relationship with a human, a cat must give up many natural behaviors: urine marking, furniture scratching, fighting with other cats, breeding, and probably hunting as well. I believe our pets love us and would choose to be our pets even if it means giving up these behaviors. Many cats have the choice of escape (if they are allowed outside) and instead want to stay and remain as beloved pets rather than return to their natural behaviors. There are only so many natural behaviors that are compatable with being a pet.

I have to say that all cats' natural behaviours should be accepted by their owners if they truly love the animal.  Ours are not neutered or spayed because of the behaviours associated with being 'whole' (although I will be the first to admit that it is a bonus!) but so that unwanted kittens are not born and subjected to potential dangers that exist (traffic being the main one here), and/or starvation.  Here in the UK we are considered to be irresponsible pet owners if we do not have our cats neutered or spayed, unless we intend to care for any resultant offspring.

One BIG difference though, between declawing and neutering or spaying, is that, in the latter, the cat no longer has the URGE to perform the behaviour.  Their hormones have been affected.  Declawed cats still have the urge to perform the behaviour, but cannot.  How can you tell that it isn't frustrating to try to scratch without claws?
>
> Declawing is done for two reasons only: selfish pet owners think more of their furnishings than their cat, and vets make a mint out of carrying out this horrendous procedure.
I assure you there is not much money to be gained in this surgery. No mints involved. I also think it is unfair to judge pet owners who choose this procedure. Many do it because of the injuries they receive from the cat when it is playing rough. Some people are on blood thinners and can't be scratched without risking serious bleeding. Some people are immune-suppressed and cannot risk infection such as cat-scratch disease. Some people have roommates who are not cat-lovers and the alternative is the cat living outdoors.

I have heard of only one instance where an owner declawed because of the cat scratching him.  ALL the rest have been for the sake of the furniture.  But anyway, if you encourage your cat to scratch in play -  it will scratch.  Find different ways of playing with it ... it's not hard!  I have a 'scratcher', she's 'playfully aggressive', and I have the scars to prove it!  But that is no reason to deprive the little darling of her appendages!  I have gradually trained her not to do it by ignoring her as soon as she starts.  She hardly ever does it now.

As for people who have an adverse reaction to cat scratches ... well, sorry, but they shouldn't have a cat!!  How about a rabbit or a dog instead?  But I'm sure those cases are relatively rare, really.  People who are allergic to nuts don't expose themselves to them if they can help it.  It would make the same sense as far as cat scratches go!

As far as 'judging' people, yes I agree I am being a little unfair, it's just that I could never contemplate having my cats operated on even if they turned my house completely upside down!  I understand that many people do not appreciate what they are doing, or, because the procedure is (apparently) so common they don't think about it at all.  Maybe.  So it's not always their fault, which I why I email you and not them!
>
> You could help eliminate this unnecessary cruelty by not offering de-clawing, and replace it with support for pet owners in training cats not to scratch the furniture.
But instead I will offer both services. I strongly feel the anti-declaw activists are hoodwinking the public and this offends me no end. One of the worst effects of their efforts is to lead people who would have declawed  young kittens Iwhen the surgery is virtually painless has with the least recovery time) to wait so long that the cat is full grown and much larger (making necessitating more pain medications and restrictions). I've been considering posting a video of a kitten the day after declaw. They climb the cage bars and toss their toys around as if nothing has happened.

Exactly how are the anti-claw 'activists' hoodwinking the public?  There is no hard evidence to prove that the cat does not suffer and, until there is, it is (to my mind) immoral to carry out the procedure.

> It really is not that difficult with most cats.
Not true. There is a gradient when it comes to tendency to scratch furniture. Some cats don't do it at all and some cats seem to consider it their life's work to shred the furniture (and there are all levels in between).

> My three do not scratch the furniture, ever, and it took no time at all to train them not to - by simply removing them from where they are scratching and placing their paws on the scratch post, and then showing them how to do it with my own hands.  It has worked with countless cats I know.  And it takes a few seconds, about twice or three times for each cat.  Not exactly a hardship is it?  And for the record, when I trained mine, they were kept indoors and I was out at work all day (I live alone).
Then you must have a local cat genetic pool with a low tendency to scratch (or maybe you just have smarter cats or superiorly textured posts). I can assure you if it were this simple probably no one would ever declaw their cat.

Maybe I and my friends are lucky then, despite some of my friends living a long way from me!  My brother lives several hours from me (where, incidentally, the human gene pool is proven as different from most of the rest of the UK!!).  He has 10 cats, all of which have been trained not to scratch.  I do understand that for some cats it may be more difficult, especially if they are pure-bred.  But it doesn't mean that different methods cannot be used, and there are plenty of repellants on the market!

And may I point out that you have contradicted yourself here.  Above you state for many the reason to declaw is because a cat scratches its owner in play.  Then you state "if it were this simple probably no one would ever declaw their cat. "  Not that it matters particularly, because either reason is as bad as the other.  It just doesn't help your credibility.
>The bottom line is there is absolutely NO need for this horrible surgery, but vets in the US continue to perpetuate the myth that it is to line their coffers.
Again, this surgery is performed to strengthen the human-animal bond. I don't think our hospital does this surgery even once a month. Not much money and not that much demand but for the right home it is a  good choice.

Sorry but again, a contradiction.  But first ... I have NEVER!! heard of declawing being claimed as helping cat and owner to bond!!  All it does is make the owner less cross about shredded furniture!  Why should the cat have to carry the burden?  Why not cut out the bit of the owner's brain that makes them cross?  (ok, I know, a very silly thought, but is it so very different really?)  Or, why doesn't the owner get furniture they don't really worry about?  Or why don't they keep their cats in rooms in which there is no valuable furniture?  Or, why get a cat at all if it is going to make you cross unless you have its toes amputated?

Back to the contradiction:  You state above that many cats would have to be left to stray or euthanised if they were not declawed, yet you state there that the surgery is hardly ever performed.  If that is the case, why not eliminate declawing altogether as it is hardly going to affect the numbers of strays - nor your wallet.  This statement makes it even more incomprehensible as to why you carry out this procedure at all.
> How about offering a training program instead if you're so worried about any loss in revenue?
Actually, I'd do the procedure for free if I could save a cat's life by doing so. We refer to several behavior experts for the training program. Not much revenue in this department; I do it because I can do it well and I believe in it.

Sorry, what, the declawing or the training?  I really hope you mean the training.

Have you EVER actually, REALLY knowingly saved a cat's life by declawing it?

Please understand, I am not questioning your love of animals.
> (and perhaps, concerned that some cats would need to be rehomed, which is your usual 'excuse'?)
Yes, I am not ashamed to say that I work very hard to see that every adoptable cat finds a loving home and stays healthy there for the longest possible life full of love and care. This is absolutely part of my life's work.

And for that I applaud you ... I just wish that you didn't amputate to make them rehomeable.  Choose a different person, or at the very least encourage them to train their cats or not care about their furniture!
>
> In the meantime, I will continue to sign every petition there is to stop de-clawing.
> Since there is no declawing in the U.K. what petitions are there for you to sign?
>
> I have signed a number of online petitions that are not constrained by nationality.
>
> Again, our city euthanizes 4,000 dogs and cats monthly (forget what happens in the whole state). There aren't enough homes. We need to open more homes to cat ownership, not close them.
>
> That is truly sad.  But difficult to comprehend when most cats are kept indoors ... how exactly does this happen?
>
> If, as you state above, there is little call for declawing, then surely it cannot be an issue that would impact greatly on the number of cats you rehome?
>
> Regards

[Susanne (urbantigers)]

Although it isn't actually illegal over here, I'd have thought there'd be a case for prosecution under animal cruelty if it wasn't done as a medial necessity.  And with the new animal welfare act even more so.

[Desley (booktigger)]

There are valid medical reasons for declawing, but they are incredibly rare - occasonally cats suffer with incredibly thin skin which tears easily, so they are sometimes declawed to save the damage to themselves. And occasionally after damage to claws, which means they would cause more probs than leaving them, but again very rare. It is mainly done in the US for the owner's convenience, but most vets do it because it is a very good money maker for them. As it has gone on so long, a lot of people do it cos that is what has always been done, or because friends/family pressured them. A lot of vets also offer 'spay and declaw packages'. Not all vets do it though.
Incidentally, you wouldn't get arrested and sent to jail for doing it over here, it isn't actually illegal, it is just frowned upon incredibly by the RCVS - there are ramifications to doing it though, think the worst they can do is take their licence off them, but it might not even get that far. There are certain instances such as the ones above where they are allowed to do it over here, as it is for the cats health and welfare.

[Hippykitty]

I think some Americans and US vets also believe that it stops them from hunting, which is also the expression of natural behaviour. Under the new UK Animal Welfare Act it is illegal to prevent animals expressing natural behaviour.
Declawing is mutilating, and can cause terrible physical and psychological suffering to the cat.

I'd love to pull off the fingers of vets who declaw, see if they consider that a 'minor' procedure! 

[ccmacey]

My God how fickle can people get! 

I cant believe a vet would carry out "cosmetic surgery" when its not for the benefit of the cat.

And to all people who greatly value a peice of furniture and have these intenions in mind, JUST DONT GET A CAT!

[Catjane]

If there ARE medical reasons, they are most certainly not the most common!  I do not know of any whatsoever.  AFAIK, it is done purely to stop cats scratching the furniture or scratching the owner, although I've only heard about the latter in one case only.

[ccmacey]

It is hard to train them not to scratch furniture, but with persistance it can be done. My God when I bought my leather sofa I didnt have declawing in mind, obviously I knew they would scratch it but had alternatives in mind, there are lots of repellants out there for people to use.

It is amputation, the claws are a part of the cats body and very much needed. Its like cutting off a childs fingers because they pick things up that you dont want them to touch. 

Very good email, send it to every vet possible.

By the way is declawing only done to stop them scratching furniture? Are there no medical reasons for doing it?

[Catjane]

Declawing incenses me, and whenever I see reference to it on a vetinary website, I can't help but respond.  This is my latest 'rant':

<<I was directed to your site by an online friend and must congratulate you on the amount of useful information there.

However, I notice that, although you suggest alternatives to declawing - 'training' - you do not one bit try to discourage owners from having their cats declawed.  In fact, you make it sound as though it is very difficult to train a cat not to scratch the furniture.  You state:

"however, it is popularly held that a number of adverse conditions result from declawing, that it is a form of mutilation. Pet owners need to sort out the facts from the rumors surrounding this procedure"

This sounds as if you are suggesting that owners have been misled into thinking that declawing is mutilation.  It IS!!!!  It is amputation, pure and simple.  Nothing more, nothing less.  How have we the right to keep a pet and then hack off part or all of its phalanges because its natural behaviour is inconvenient for us?  Tough.  Don't keep a pet.  This barbaric practice MUST stop!  In the UK, you would be arrested and sent to jail for doing such a thing - on three counts:  1) It causes unnecessary suffering; 2) It is mutilation; and 3) it prevents the animal expressing its natural behaviour.

Declawing is done for two reasons only: selfish pet owners think more of their furnishings than their cat, and vets make a mint out of carrying out this horrendous procedure.

You could help eliminate this unnecessary cruelty by not offering de-clawing, and replace it with support for pet owners in training cats not to scratch the furniture.  It really is not that difficult with most cats.  My three do not scratch the furniture, ever, and it took no time at all to train them not to - by simply removing them from where they are scratching and placing their paws on the scratch post, and then showing them how to do it with my own hands.  It has worked with countless cats I know.  And it takes a few seconds, about twice or three times for each cat.  Not exactly a hardship is it?  And for the record, when I trained mine, they were kept indoors and there was nobody at home during the day.

The bottom line is there is absolutely NO need for this horrible surgery, but vets in the US continue to perpetuate the myth that it is in order to line their coffers.  How about offering a training program instead if you're so worried about any loss in revenue?  (and perhaps, concerned that some cats would need to be rehomed, which is your usual 'excuse'?)

In the meantime, I will continue to sign every petition there is to stop de-clawing.

Regards>>

I really don't know if this would do any good, and it IS a bit of a rant,  but I am aware of how some of these US vets work.  My sister in law lives in Georgia in the US, and her cat was scratching the furniture (I had no idea of this at the time ... didn't even know she had a cat).  Anyway, someone recommended she get the cat declawed, but she was a bit concerned about what it entailed and the effect on the cat.  The vet told her that it was a minor procedure which would not affect the cat in the slightest, that there was no alternative, and that the cat was either to be declawed or her furniture would be ruined, she was told that it is 'normal procedure'.   

Apparently, now, her cat is scared of everything and no longer plays.  She also has some difficulty running.    My sister in law is full of remorse for what she has done and has changed her vet - good for her!