http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2686125.stm
As an anti-declawer, I for one am delighted to see the first ban of this barbaric practice in the US, by West Hollywood. I hope other jurisdictions, states and countries will follow their excellent lead.
I know this is a contentious issue, with strong opinion on both sides. So this landmark decision for feline rights seems an appropriate time to open up a debate on Declawing: Acceptable or Unacceptable?
Actually, there is already a debate going on, though haven’t got time to find it for a link.
Anyway, my €0.02: I think declawing is unacceptable except in extreme circumstances. It’s mutilation for the convenience of humans.
If I had an elephant, I wouldn’t remove its trunk to stop it stealing buns.
I didn’t know felines had any rights. Oh well, I suppose people in W. Hollywood can just take their cats out of town to get them declawed. Just sounds like one other California town passing feel good laws that won’t amount to changing a thing.
Marc
Possible advantages of this ruling:
Kitty feels better.
Possibly disadvantage:
People, after getting a cat, realize just how much of a pain in the ass their claws are. They take the cat to a vet for declawing, but ALAS! they cannot. They were willing to front the cash for it, but take the hours and hours to drive out of town, to a different vet, to do it? Forget it. They throw Kitty into a sack, throw the sack into the river, and tell the kids about Kitty Heaven.
Then they get a dog.
That sounds like a better solution to you? You monster!
(Note: This post to be taken partially in jest. Partially.)
MGibson - part of the issue is that it’s not just a “nail clipping” - it’s the permanent surgical removal of their nail and top tendon (ie their actual digit). It is a maiming practice.
Felines may not have the right to vote, but I think anything that lives under our guardianship deserves to be treated with respect and decency during its life. This goes for food animals too - IANAVegetarian, I eat meat, but I expect the animals to be well treated for the duration of their lives.
I spoke to our cat, Jane, about this, and he says you’re argument is absurd.
You speak about declawing as “maiming”, as though the cat is wrestled to the ground where it screams in pain as its limbs are ripped from it by nefarious punks who also tie cats’ tails together and hang them over clotheslines.
It is in fact a surgical procedure under anesthesia, performed by a veterinary doctor, that is for the benefit of the animal so that it might live out its life in luxury. Jane is presently curled up in front of the heating duct on his favorite blanket, licking his chest, and savoring the aftertaste of his delicious and nutritious breakfast.
He could hardly be treated any better.
Were he to have claws, we could not be his servants and wait on him hand and foot in our home. He would probably already be dead, either run over by a car, eaten by a dog, euthanized by a humane shelter, or frozen to death in an ice storm. Instead, he’s luxuriating in our warm home and probably wondering why I keep looking around at him.
First, I would never declaw a cat. It strikes me as both mean and unnecessary.
However, other people do lots of things that I would never do (for various reasons), and I don’t think we need laws against them.
In sort of a perverse way, I’m more concerned about cats who are allowed to roam, and at least declawing keeps more cats inside-only. I’d support a no-roaming law, as the justification would be the protection of the property of others.
The fact that you can leave town without even knowing it (well, I can because I get lost all the time) in West Hollywood makes this law seem even sillier.
Does West Hollywood have an opinion on the docking of dogs’ tails?
I can surgically remove your testicles, Libertarian, under the most pleasant of conditions. Doesn’t make it any less of a maiming.
You suppose your boss demanded that you get your nails removed to keep your station in life (and I know you are your own boss so this thought experiment is slightly tortured hehe :)) that you would feel that way?
Will West Hollywood conclude that keeping cats indoors is contrary to a cat’s true nature? Will they pass a law mandating that all cats be allowed to roam at all times? I would bet that West Hollywood already has laws in place that prohibit dogs from roaming. Keeping a dog confined in a kennel or in a fenced yard violates the dog’s nature, doesn’t it? Castrating a male dog or cat seems inhumane to me—I know I wouldn’t like it even a little bit. Spaying a female cat or dog deprives the animal of its basic right to be a mother, doesn’t it? Let’s make that practice illegal while we’re at it.
I think that a LOT of animal activists have completely lost touch with reality.
< hijack >
Lib, you have a male cat named Jane?
No wonder you don’t find declawing to be inhumane! 
< /hijack >
Good fuxzoring Lord, people. If declawing or neutering is maiming, then slaughtering a cow is murder. And cannabilism.
Animals don’t have human rights. And whether or not people should declaw their animals is a different beast from whethere or not they should be allowed to.
It’s a long story, but the short version is that we thought he was a girl cat when we first got him. In visits to the vet, it never came up until we took him in to be (dare I say it?) spayed.
robert, declawing fits maiming as well as I can imagine:
I suppose permanently altering a cat’s outward physical appearance isn’t disfiguring to you? Or what?
They don’t need human rights. In fact, I will argue that all anti-cruelty laws are bunk because of it. But I have a strong opinion on animal mutilation and abuse. You can perhaps see that these are not contradictory opinions? Ah, yes you do:
Yep, my side is: declawing is as unacceptable as a law being passed against it.
My station? No. But the equivalent of Jane’s? Hell, yes.
Oh, Lib brings up a good point… if we are against declawing are we also against population control through mutilation? Would we have to be?
So do spaying and neutering.
So, has West Hollywood passed a law against spaying and neutering yet?
I think a lot of people declaw their cats because they think it’s one of those things that has to be done. Same with docking the tails of dogs. Same with circumsision. It’s one of those pet-owner habits that until recently has gone unquestioned.
As someone who has performed neutering and declawing (oh my!), I can testify that although these are elective procedures, they are done humanely. Using the word “maiming” is misinformed hyperbole. Personally, I don’t like declawing cats because it is unnecessary and may cause behavioral problems that result in worse problems than tattered furniture. Plus, any operation that requires anesthesia carries the risk of death. But I don’t liken it to hacking off people’s genitalia with a cold butter-knife. There’s no need to use War On Drugs-like propaganda to express your disfavor of declawing, people!
This is what I believe: Veterinarians need to educate their clients when they come in requesting the procedure. The cool thing about claws is that they can be clipped rather easily; the finger-tips need not be amputated to spare upholstery. Perhaps if more people knew this they wouldn’t be so quick to put Socks under the knife. Informing the clients about all the possible options is the most ethical thing a vet can do, short of banning the practice altogether.
ywtf, soon-to-be vet (5 months and counting!)
NO, no, no!!! Spaying and neutering are for the animal’s own welfare!!! Declawing is for the human’s welfare!!! :rolleyes:
Why the false dilemma? It is hardly of benefit to the cat that he dies in the wild.
(Congratulations, Face!)
Please refer me to a better definition of maiming that demonstrates the hyperbole. It seems to me the one Merriam-Webster offers in number (2) fits the bill without any messy exaggeration.
Well, RickJay, this is an interesting question. If we outlaw pot, do we have to outlaw alcohol to be consistent? Or can I say, if we allow alcohol to be legal, do we have to legalize cocaine to be consistent?