StarDestroyer.Net BBS

RedImperator wrote:Scratching posts aren't worth the carpet remnants they're made out of. Cats scratch furniture, and these self-righteous blowhards pissing and moaning about "mutilation" have obviously never had a $2000 living room set destroyed by a pair of $15 cats. Competently done, declawing leaves them sore for a week. As for their balance, one of mine weighs 18 pounds and can leap up on top of an entertainment center completely covered in greeting cards and picture frames and not knock a single thing over.

Domestic cats get food, water, shelter, medical care, protection from predators, and affection, and they live three times as long as feral cats. Losing their claws is a small price to pay for all this, IMHO.

(Note that this only applies to indoor cats. Outdoor cats need their claws for defense and taking the heads off small woodland creatures. I'd never get an outdoor cat declawed.)

But if you get a cat, it should have been considered in the first place that cats do Bad Things (TM) to furniture.
So if your furniture is too expensive, or you like your furniture in pristine order, don't get a cat. It's as simple.

Get a dog. They are much nicer to furniture.

But it's a moot point for me, even if I was crazy enough to actually want to do it. Declawing is illegal here.

So by your logic, anyone who doesn't like having their furniture shredded shouldn't get a cat. That's just great--so how many more animals do you think are going to end up getting destroyed at the animal shelter or dumped in the street because people who don't want claw marks in the loveseat can't adopt cats?

Not just people who are concerned about their furniture being ruined; what about people with small children who want to have a cat but don't want to risk their kids going to kindergarten with scratch marks?

Cats are no trade good. They're alive.
And they come with claws. It's abasic "built-in" feature of a cat.
If you want to get a pet, you'd have to inform yourself before you get them in your house. And know about the risks involved.

Those people who just get a pet without knowing what they get, and then throw it out of the house, or give it to an animal shelter are just irresponsible and shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.

Well, like it or not, cats are subject to supply and demand just like everything else, and an animal that can potentially destroy thousands of dollars worth of furniture is not going to be in as much demand as an animal that can have its enormous destructive potential removed through an operation. In short, less demand for cats => more euthanized cats.

So what, in the long run, is going to be more beneficial to cats; allow people to declaw their cats and give them good homes, or make declawing illegal and cause untold numbers of cats to not have homes and be euthanized?

Durran Korr wrote:Well, like it or not, cats are subject to supply and demand just like everything else, and an animal that can potentially destroy thousands of dollars worth of furniture is not going to be in as much demand as an animal that can have its enormous destructive potential removed through an operation. In short, less demand for cats => more euthanized cats.

So what, in the long run, is going to be more beneficial to cats; allow people to declaw their cats and give them good homes, or make declawing illegal and cause untold numbers of cats to not have homes and be euthanized?

People who value the pristine condition of their homes more than their pet shouldn't have one in the first place or should get a stuffed animal.

A big dog can ruin your house equally nice, and that without claws.

Personally I would never declaw a cat. It is the equivalent of cutting all of your fingers off at the top knuckle. Whether the operation hurts or not, I still wouldn't do it. I have had a cat that was declawed and was killed by a dog because it couldn't climb a tree. I have had a cat that spent most of the time outside and never scratched the furniture once. I own two cats now that never go ouside and they use their scratching post quite a bit. They only go after the furniture when their claws get too long. Then they get their claws trimmed. It's not that hard to take care of and my couch is fine. That's just my personal experience though. [shrug]

Maybe they should try to get neutering and spaying banned to, since it involves hurting the animals to control their population... Oops, already done

Dahak wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:Well, like it or not, cats are subject to supply and demand just like everything else, and an animal that can potentially destroy thousands of dollars worth of furniture is not going to be in as much demand as an animal that can have its enormous destructive potential removed through an operation. In short, less demand for cats => more euthanized cats.

So what, in the long run, is going to be more beneficial to cats; allow people to declaw their cats and give them good homes, or make declawing illegal and cause untold numbers of cats to not have homes and be euthanized?

People who value the pristine condition of their homes more than their pet shouldn't have one in the first place or should get a stuffed animal.

A big dog can ruin your house equally nice, and that without claws.

And in Magical Fantasy Land, where everything is perfect, there'd be just enough cats for the people who want them and don't mind having their furniture destroyed. Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, we do not live in Magical Fantasy Land, nor a reasonable approximation thereof. You've YET to address the consequences your position would have in the real world--namely, thousands more cats who are no longer adoptable because people aren't willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars invested in furnishings for a cat.

I'm against declawing, but it is not within the cities purview to ban the procedure.

Mark S wrote:Personally I would never declaw a cat. It is the equivalent of cutting all of your fingers off at the top knuckle. Whether the operation hurts or not, I still wouldn't do it. I have had a cat that was declawed and was killed by a dog because it couldn't climb a tree. I have had a cat that spent most of the time outside and never scratched the furniture once. I own two cats now that never go ouside and they use their scratching post quite a bit. They only go after the furniture when their claws get too long. Then they get their claws trimmed. It's not that hard to take care of and my couch is fine. That's just my personal experience though. [shrug]

If the cat spends even part of his time outdoors, then he shouldn't have his claws removed. The outside world is a lot more dangerous than the inside of a house, and the cat might need his claws to stay alive.

Cats are unpredictable animals. Some will stick to a scratching post. Most don't. Scratching things, in addition to keeping their claws short and sharp, marks objects with their scent. Even declawed cats still "scratch" furniture to mark it. That's why for most people, scratching posts are useless. Kitty might use the post, but he's still going after the dinette set as soon as you're not around to yell at him for it.

RedImperator wrote:And in Magical Fantasy Land, where everything is perfect, there'd be just enough cats for the people who want them and don't mind having their furniture destroyed. Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, we do not live in Magical Fantasy Land, nor a reasonable approximation thereof. You've YET to address the consequences your position would have in the real world--namely, thousands more cats who are no longer adoptable because people aren't willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars invested in furnishings for a cat.

I don't live in Magical Fantasy Land. I live in Germany. And declawing is illegal here.
Yet we do not drown in cats.
There are many cats who are adopted from private persons, who have to give away their cats or from animal shelters. One of our cats was from a man who died. Several friends got their cats from animal shelters. (And they are not killed in animal shelters btw).

So I profoundly fail to see your point.

Dahak wrote:

RedImperator wrote:And in Magical Fantasy Land, where everything is perfect, there'd be just enough cats for the people who want them and don't mind having their furniture destroyed. Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, we do not live in Magical Fantasy Land, nor a reasonable approximation thereof. You've YET to address the consequences your position would have in the real world--namely, thousands more cats who are no longer adoptable because people aren't willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars invested in furnishings for a cat.

I don't live in Magical Fantasy Land. I live in Germany. And declawing is illegal here.
Yet we do not drown in cats.
There are many cats who are adopted from private persons, who have to give away their cats or from animal shelters. One of our cats was from a man who died. Several friends got their cats from animal shelters. (And they are not killed in animal shelters btw).

So I profoundly fail to see your point.

You don't euthanize cats in Germany? What, do the animal shelters jut take care of unwanted cats until their death?

Even if what you're saying is true in Germany (and I'm skeptical of that), it certainly isn't true in the States, because there are thousands of unwanted dogs and cats euthanized in animal shelters every year. Making the declawing of cats illegal would only add to an already fairly large problem.

Durran Korr wrote:

Dahak wrote: You don't euthanize cats in Germany? What, do the animal shelters jut take care of unwanted cats until their death?

Even if what you're saying is true in Germany (and I'm skeptical of that), it certainly isn't true in the States, because there are thousands of unwanted dogs and cats euthanized in animal shelters every year. Making the declawing of cats illegal would only add to an already fairly large problem.

Some animal shelters seem to do it. But only few, because most of the animal shelters are operated by privately funded animal protection organizations. For instance, the animal shelter in my city got several dogs and cats from another animal shelter in the region, because they would have killed them in that particular animal shelter.

But very old animals, and ill ones are killed by a doctor if necessary.

WARNING! By going there you are acknowledging that you realise that it is a gruesome sight and not for the faint of heart.

http://www.reigningcats.net/NoDeclaw.gif

You have been warned. That is why I posted a link and not a a [img]. Don't come complaining to me that I'm an asshole for posting that because you were warned that it might be highly offensive and if you complain, you're just a dumb-ass.

That said, wait for a few seconds while it loads.

Dahak wrote:

RedImperator wrote:And in Magical Fantasy Land, where everything is perfect, there'd be just enough cats for the people who want them and don't mind having their furniture destroyed. Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, we do not live in Magical Fantasy Land, nor a reasonable approximation thereof. You've YET to address the consequences your position would have in the real world--namely, thousands more cats who are no longer adoptable because people aren't willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars invested in furnishings for a cat.

I don't live in Magical Fantasy Land. I live in Germany. And declawing is illegal here.
Yet we do not drown in cats.
There are many cats who are adopted from private persons, who have to give away their cats or from animal shelters. One of our cats was from a man who died. Several friends got their cats from animal shelters. (And they are not killed in animal shelters btw).

So I profoundly fail to see your point.

If they're not killed in animal shelters, what the hell do the shelters do with them all? In this country, unwanted cats are euthanised by the tens of thousands because the shelters don't have nearly enough room for them. And even if they weren't killed, spending 10-15 years in a cage can hardly be better than being declawed!

That's the real-life, real-world situation as it stands today. Your argument is that the United States should outlaw the declawing of cats, and people who don't want their furniture wrecked shouldn't adopt cats. You've yet to explain to me where those cats who would have been adopted by those people are going to go.

Declawing is not an ideal solution, but outright banning is going to result in thousands of more cats languishing in shelters and eventually being put to death.

ArmorPierce wrote:WARNING! By going there you are acknowledging that you realise that it is a gruesome sight and not for the faint of heart.

So, what is it a picture of? I'm curious, but I'd like to have some idea what I'm getting myself into first.



I have two cats, both of which were declawed when they were spayed/neutered. That took place when they were approximately 12 weeks old, and neither one noticed AT ALL; there was no blood, no soreness (as evident by the way they walked). Since they are both Siamese, I assure you that if they had been in pain, they would have been most vocal about it.

Zaia wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote:WARNING! By going there you are acknowledging that you realise that it is a gruesome sight and not for the faint of heart.

So, what is it a picture of? I'm curious, but I'd like to have some idea what I'm getting myself into first.



I have two cats, both of which were declawed when they were spayed/neutered. That took place when they were approximately 12 weeks old, and neither one noticed AT ALL; there was no blood, no soreness (as evident by the way they walked). Since they are both Siamese, I assure you that if they had been in pain, they would have been most vocal about it.

A series of shots of what the declawing operation looks like. I didn't think it was that bad, but you might disagree.

Thanks, Durran, for letting me know what it was. I didn't think it was too bad either, and certainly didn't turn me against declawing. Doh. I am such a heartless bitch.

My cat has been declawed for most of his life. Now I didn't take in role in this choice, my parents made it, but my cate gets around perfectly well. Of course he still has back claws, I don't know if this is standard operating procedure when declawing or not.

I remember what people were saying about the pictures of the dead aborted fetuses so I didn't want to have people riding on my back screaming that they didn't want to see that or something even though I didn't think that it was that bad, others may disagree.

It's kinda difficult to scratch with hind legs, so I guess there's no point to removing them.

I never knew that declawing meant taking off the first joint (although Mark S' post should have tipped me off ).

Darth Wong wrote:And besides, we wouldn't want HemlockGrey to get what's left of his nuts ripped off.

If it happens again, I'm glad someone who didn't learn from that sort of experience won't be reproducing.

I haven't had a cat for a very long time but the two instances when people in my family had cats we got them declawed when they were very young. I don't remember the kittens destroying anything but I do remember them hanging from one claw which was still hooked into the drapes.

At the time (1970s) most people who had indoor cats had the front paws declawed and I never heard or saw difficulties with it. Of course, given my age I could easily have been oblivious. If I got a cat now I probably wouldn't have it declawed. It would take a great deal of on going destruction to me and my home before I'd have my cat declawed.

Still, my cat would never be allowed to rome outside on its own. Claws or not cats that go outside have much shorter lifespans here than house cats. Besides the many I see hit by cars coyotes kill and eat lots and lots of smaller pets, cats included, every year. I've seen coyotes on the campass of the hospital I work at and I've seen them crossing the street in front of me on my way home. Because of all the golf courses and the usually dry river beds coyotes can be found just about everywhere in this city and coyotes will eat cats, with or without their claws.

Darth Yoshi wrote:It's kinda difficult to scratch with hind legs, so I guess there's no point to removing them.

I never knew that declawing meant taking off the first joint (although Mark S' post should have tipped me off ).

In a real fight cats can do more damage with the hind claws than the front. They roll over onto their backs and then really dig those hind claws into the belly of whatever is on top of them. The front claws can be a good deterent or grasping weapon but the rear ones are nasty.