My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Tragic Fatal Attack in Orange, VA | Main | Dogfighting Videos and First Amendment battle it out in the Surpeme Court »

September 29, 2009



I agree with you 100% We declaw cats and most of the time it is because the owner just cant take them clawing up the furniture or some apartments require you to have them decalwed otherwise you cant own them. So Id also rather be declawed than be killed. We have now started to use laser at our clinic and it is soooo much better than the old way of doing it. People dont see what I see most of the time. After declawing a cat the old way the cat would hide in the back of the cage, not eat, be so painful even though we had them on painmeds. Now after using laser they are up playing, eating, we of course still give them pain meds but the difference is amzing and it makes me feel much better about doing it. If I had a cat and HAD to declaw it I wouldnt have it done any other way than with a laser!


Of course once that declawed kitty starts biting and stops using the litter box, it's right back to the shelter! If your cats are still scratching the sofa/carpet/ect, you might not have enough proper scratching surfaces. Sisal rope is much preferred over carpet in my house(I have four cats).

Brad Jensen

Sorry Brent but I have to disagree with you 100% on this one. It's not at all like cutting the nails out of your fingers. Its like cutting each of the toes on your feet back one joint. Bone, muscle, tendons and nerves, all gone. And there's really no comparison to be made with removing reproductive organs. After all, some of us have to have that done ourselves... both for medical and cosmetic reasons.

I had Love Birds for years and though the little shits destroyed a lot of my stuff when I let them out to exercise, I never once thought of cutting their beaks off.



The reason for laws banning such a practice come from seeing the results of such surgeries, and the broken lives of cats (and people) that result. They are not anywhere near the majority, but it is not uncommon to find veterinarians that will not tell a client of other options, who just do the surgery and collect the payment, who will not send them to the professional they ought to be seeing first, and a very, very few whose surgical technique is something out of the mid 1300's. Their results speak for themselves - ask any rescue or shelter. So people turn to a law to ban the practice, because declawing doesn't fix all the problems any more than some idiot wanting to "ban pit bulls" is going to fix the problem of a person not caring for their dog. These are all misguided efforts to effect a quick solution. They should start with public education and some provision to help owners change their own behavior.

In a more perfect world, with a knowledgeable, skilled vet who will take the time and effort to find the real problem and help the pet owner work through a solution it is very likely that onychectomy won't be the final solution. On the other hand, we live in a world where over 200,000 humans die of malpractice every year, where we kill about 2-3 million pets a year because we won't properly provide and fund spay/neuter, and where children still get hurt by dogs who spend their lives on chains outside. Good luck, kitty.

But it's anatomy lesson time. And _please_, don't take this as an argument for or against. I agree with Brent, it is a decision that should be between an owner and a veterinarian. Since this is, by definition, a behavior problem, their best bet would be to contact a veterinary behaviorist. If behavior modification or adding something to their environment (like Stacey mentioned) is unsuccessful, that vet is equipped to help you make the best choice. But for the sake of sake of accuracy...

This post equates "fingernails being cut out of my fingers" with the declawing of a cat. On a human, the distal phalanx is the last bone on the end of the limb. The nail develops from cells that are well away from the bone in the bed of the nail. Were you to pull off the nail you are left with the bed under the nail. You would have to remove some other layers of skin to get to the skeleton.

On a cat, the claw is an extension of that last bone, not just something that grows from the skin. To take it off you cut open the area and either cut off or amputate the last bone from the paw, along with ligaments, etc.

Declawing cats "the old way" is what the vast majority of cats still undergo. A laser in a vet's office causes less trauma, but they are not that common. Heck, there are still whole areas without even a vet, much less ones that would spend the money on this (and training) when they have perfectly good scissors and scalpel (check around if you think I'm kidding). The last bone, ligaments, etc are cut, then the skin is sutured between the pads. (Visualize this - open up your finger and cut the end off of the last bone, then suture it up. The tip of your finger is still there, but a little more flexible. You won't ever be able to use it like you used to. Now do it to your whole hand. Both hands. And both feet). Not because the operation is difficult, but because the cat uses those claws and that toe for balance, and because the complication rate can be as high as 50%, this should be considered major surgery. The recovery for them to simply learn to walk again can be weeks. A percentage of them are crippled for life.

With all due respect, the comparison made by Gina is not accurate, but it is easier to understand when placed in a human context. Based on that example, a woman who has a hysterectomy to remove a tumor (pretty common these days), or a man who has a vasectomy would be considered as having a similar experience to the person who would be anesthetized and have the ends of their fingers and toes opened up, the ends of the bones cut off, and the skin sutured back up. Can one really think that there would be so little difference in the experience? Want to try some basketball afterwards? Although there are specific cases in which development, age, aggression or other factors might play a role, generally speaking, the pet does not "need" the reproductive organs. The feeling, stretching, balance, and movements of a cat, on the other hand, depend a great deal on those last little bits of bone, ligament, nerve endings, etc - all of which is gone with this operation. Can they learn to get by without them? Sure. Will they ever be the same, or have the same life? No. And some will be effectively disabled with no hope of a cure.

Obviously a law is not going to stop these owners looking for "quick" solutions rather than the root cause. Dogs are commonly de-barked by owners who fail to recognize the stress or conditions that are causing the barking. They are left with a stressed out dog that makes quiet gasping sounds, and often times the behavior manifests itself in other ways because the dog's natural method of communicating 'HELP' is gone. Then they wind up in the shelter anyway, but broken. The thought that declawing might prevent the cat from going to the shelter is, for many, not reality. Check any shelter or rescue - plenty of declawed cats. And it is true that owner surrenders in a shelter are likely to have a dismal and short future. For the really tough cases a better option might be patiently working through a rescue to find a new home. But another law is probably not the first or best solution to this.

Heather B

For 15 bucks, one can have caps placed on their kittys nails, thus eliminating the need to chop them off at the first knuckle.My vet recommends them to her clients . De-clawing often results in non use of litter which just gets the cat sent to the shelter for behavioural issues.
Another stupid law isnt going to help the cat explosion. Humans have to do that.


There is no justification for declawing cats, whether by laser or scalpel it is still the amputation of the last joint of each toe and it still leads to physical and mental disability. Rescue shelters are full of surrendered declawed cats that have developed litter box aversion or aggression and most surrendered declawed cats are unrehomeable and end up being killed. The AVMA policy states that declawing should be a last resort, how does that sit with US vets offering declawing in a package with neutering and vaccination for kittens? Vets make a nice profit from declawing so they, and their staff, are never going to tell you the truth about declawing
Finally, declawing is banned in 38 countries of the world as inhumane, so how can millions of people be wrong and the USA (and Canada) be right? Step into the light USA citizens, very soon you will not have the option of mutilating your cats and you will find, just like the rest of the cizilised world already knows, that cats can be, and are, taught to use scratching posts instead of your furniture.


Let's talk about bang for your buck. I don't understand why all these groups don't go after public shelters for not implementing No Kill policies. How about the animal torture going on in the LA shelter? Why is it they want to go after the GP and veternarians instead of spending time ending the tax payer financed slaugher going on in our shelters? How about educational campaigns? What if the cat is attacking the family and declawing it will save them from injury and keep the pet in the home?

No, all that's too much work...THERE OUTTA BE A LAW!!! Sure wish all these nutjob groups would spend more time with proven life saving programs.

And paleeze, female animals go thru a complete hysterectomy when being spayed - AND IT HURTS!! And there ARE complications including death, potentially severe behavioral issues such as aggression, increased risk of come cancers (esp with pediatric). And yet NONE of these groups would send a Great Dane puppy home without being altered even tho there is a signifcant (IMO) risk of premature, and painful, death from cancer.

Bottem line is this law is completely unneccesary at this time (esp when CA is going bankrupt) and a waste of resources until we reach NO Kill as a country.


And for the record I'm 99.9% against declawing (recognizing there can be legitimate reasons it's needed).


Declawing is a cruel mutilating operation which disables a cat for life.Cats need their claws for exercising their leg, shoulder and back muscles as well as for self defence.Whether by guillotine or by laser, it is still the amputation of the last joints of the cats toes !Declawing is banned here in the UK but even before it was, none of our vets would declaw a cat ! Vets are trained to help animals, not to make money by disabling them. There is no justification for declawing any cat.The rescue shelters are full of unrehomable declawed cats with physical or mental behavioural problems.
If a cat scratches where he shouldn't, it's the fault of the owner, not the cat. Provided with scratching posts and pads,a cat is easily taught to use them.
Cats are born with claws because they need claws,it is of no benefit to the cat to declaw him.This is totally different from spaying or castrating a cat for their own health and welfare.
I can't believe any self respecting vet will agree to declaw any cat !We in England have joined forces with the many USA citizens who want this disgraceful operation made illegal and we won't give up until that happens !!!
40 years vet nurse


It is easy for you to say that you'd rather have your finger tips chopped off than to be killed. Easy because you know darn well that you'd never be in a position to prove it. That's simply not a valid argument.

How do you know that a cat would rather go through life being disabled (mutilated by the very person who is supposed to love and care for them)? Do you know how many humans have taken their own life because of a disability that they simply couldn't face anymore? I thought not.

Overpopulation and euthanasia are sad realities, but do not justify further mistreatment of those that have been spared.

I believe that if declawing wasn't an easy, legal alternative (lazy way out), then many more people than you think would accept cats for what they are and the claws they have. If they really love cats and want to have one, and there is no easy out, then they'll take the time to teach the cat not to scratch. Those that can't be bothered to do that shouldn't be having a cat anyway.

Oh, and about spaying and neutering. Sure it's a surgery. And sure, it hurts. BUT, there are many health benefits to the cat that go along with spaying and neutering. You can't say the same thing about declawing, so that's not a valid argument either.

Andrea Bossenmeyer

So you're not just removing the finger nail you are removing it all the way to the knuckle. It causes severe psychological damage to the cat. It sounds like you haven't researched the issue much and are speaking from a very uneducated point of reference. I'm saying this not to be insulting but to state fact. Please do a little research on it.

As far as Gina's surgery argument. She's ignorant. That was meant to be insulting. Spay and neutering is a surgery but it's apples to oranges. They have nothing to do with each other. One is preventing un-neccesary killing. One does not NEED to reproduce, however a cat does need ALL of their body parts, especially if it causes more harm than good, which de-clawing DOES. Again it's not like you're just removing the nail. I'm not a big fan of clipping ears either, but that's another way we dis-respect animals, for our own personal aesthetic or preference. We might as all join the Dr. Mangle fan club.

I have loved your blog up until this post...However I'll stick around...I just recommend you do some reading up on the subject of de-clawing.


I have two cats and they both have their claws. I do not favor declawing cats, but if someone wants to, then fine. The cats can live with it. All of the declawed cats I know seem to think they still have claws anyway. My couch and carpet have taken quite a beating over the last couple years, by the way. I can't promise that I will never declaw my cats. They are pushing their luck!

In fact, if shelters that can afford it chose to voluntarily declaw all cats, those cats would be more likely to find homes. Most landlords only allow cats if the cats are declawed. Although I've never had a landlord enforce this, many people are afraid to risk eviction.

Making it illegal to declaw a cat is pretty crazy. I'm not sure why we are wasting our time with silly bans like this when our government is broke. But I guess I should not be surprised.


It's sad to see that Gina's relentless cat hatred is being promoted on this blog as fact by a dog enthusiast. Incidentally Gina's acolytes are pretty much all dog enthusiasts and to a person all demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge about Onychectomy.

Personal freedom is an interesting point. Laws are in place to enforce that certain unsavoury and obscene personal freedoms such as rape, paedophilia and murder are not permitted. It will take a law to stop the personal freedom of crippling cats through multiple amputations to stop those who harbour the belief that personal freedom, no matter how cruel, how obscene should be a be all and end all right.

You can call us insane fairy headed animal activists who don't live in the real world all you like. You can bring in the issue of spay/neuter as a distraction to save you looking in accurate detail at the argument against declawing. It won't change the reality that cats come with claws and to deprive them of claws, all because a person cannot be bothered to learn to train an animal humanely is not a given human right. There is absolutely no benefit to the cat in amputating the ends of its toes. Similarly there is no benefit to the dog of de-barking, ear cropping and tail docking. All are vanity mutilations carried out by people who consider an animal to be an alterable object subject to fashion and whim.

It took a Federal Law to stop declawing of Big Cats in America. It will take a Federal Law to stop declawingof domestic cats. It will happen. America will eventually be forced to catch up with the rest of the 38 civilised countries who have already banned it.

Those countries have banned it because veterinary experts and behavioural scientist deem it too cruel to subject an animal to that life long pain and to deprive them of a natural function.

Those of you who delight in the statement that "declawed cats can live with it" are only showing how ignorant you are of cat behaviour and appear lacking in the slightest degree of compassion to these wonderful animals. Cats are stoic about pain, plenty of owners and plenty of vets and techs find it terribly hard to spot the pain expression of cats. Behavioural science has shown that their pain is as valid and as real as pain experienced by humans.

Greedy and unethical vets do not abide by their trade associations policies and that greedy sham the AVMA is too gutless to enforce its policies - the income of vets is all that matters to them.

The AVMA even rewrites statistical theory to write off 30% of declawed cats exhibiting major behavioural change after Onychectomy. To me, that destroys their credibility completely.

Pro-declaw people such as Gina argue that it will be education that stops declaw surgery for domestic cats. Alas education cannot happen unless people are willing to be educated. Those who defend their right to mutilate and cripple their animals, are so fired up with indignation that they will never be in a position where learning is possible through education. This is why a law is needed.

Remember that no one ever walks into a shlter and asks for a peeing, pooping, biting, psychologically distrubed, crippled cat. Those cats are killed because they have been declawed. Your argument that declawing saves lives is fallacious. In the UK where declawing is illegal, we live with our clawed cats happily, we realise they have their own physiology and psychology and we have respect for that. We train humanely, we do not consider that a living should be mutilated to save a piece of furniture. The myth that indoor cats don't need their claws is a nonsense. All cats require their claws to function healthily.

Legislate now, learn later.

Brent Toellner

"Legislate now, learn later"

That attitude is scary as hell as far as I'm concerned. In fact, it's almost the entire reason I wrote this post.

If you read my post -- and most of the comments that agree with me - I'm NOT advocating willy nilly cutting off of cats claws for vanity reasons. I don't know any rational person who is.

However, having a cat declawed requires a veterinarian. We don't have to educate the entire US population on why they shouldn't declaw cats -- we just need to educate the veterinarian population on why they shouldn't. And while I'm sure there are some rogue vets who will do anything for a paycheck (hey, I've met a few), they certainly aren't the norm. The vast majority of the vets I've known (which is quite a few) realy do put the animals best inetersts as the first priority. If there are a handful of vets out there who are NOT doing it that way, let's work with the AVMA/etc to work through that.

Legislation is not best done to legislate first, learn later.

If I've learned anything about legislation is that for every law that is passed with good intentions, there are usually handfuls of unintended consequences that most people never thought of.

In this case, what do we do with a apartment dwellers that can't have a cat with claws. Does that cat now just instantly come to the shelter?

What about the person who can't stop their cats from clawing -- which happens -- and decides its the only option for them to be able to live with the cat?

Filling up our shelters with cats that already have homes when we already kill 2.5 million or so in shelters isn't a great option either IMO. But that is what will happen.

While most cases should not involve having a cat declawed, even if there 1 in 100 does call for it, we're talking 750,000 more cats that would end up in a shelter....something no US shelter can handle right now.

And with all due respect to the UK crowd and their claim of being more humane, I would want real evidence that this hasn't led to increased killing in shelters as I don't exactly look to the UK for the best in animal legal guidance -- look no further than the Dangerous Dogs Act which has led to the deaths of thousands of dogs that look like particular breeds and the enforcement of which had caused dog bites to go up by 50% over the past decade.

Legislate now, learn later is NOT a good response. Let's educate first - and when all else fails, you legislate. But with legislation always comes unintended consequences...

PAMM - People Against Mad Mothers

I've asked my two CLAWED cats their opinion and they said "Anyone that spells civilized with an 's' can shut the f!ck up about being civilized when your country has slaughtered God knows how many blocky headed dogs for NO damn good reason as you stand by silently while it happens."

The fear mongering about declawed cats is ridiculous as well. I've know plenty of people over the years that had perfectly normal declawed cats that are wonderful, dedicated owners - and there are others out there that take their clawed cats to the shelter when the don't match the new furniture.

To be fair, they also said "Yeah, Sherlock, I'd rather not have my paw tips cut off."


"what do we do with a apartment dwellers that can't have a cat with claws" - you educate landlords that declawed cats are more likely to have litter box avoidance issues and cause more damage. No landlord can legally require a cat to be declawed.

"What about the person who can't stop their cats from clawing -- which happens -- and decides its the only option for them to be able to live with the cat?" - I haven't met a cat yet who cannot be trained using appropriate, consistent and motivational training methods - it's hard to get owners to use motivational and effective training with their animals, very hard, I do it for a living and I know just how hard, but it is never a case that the animal has failed and must be mutilated to stay alive, it's always a defect in the training they receive - that's a given, with the correct approach any domestic animal can be trained within an adapted environment.

"And with all due respect to the UK crowd and their claim of being more humane, I would want real evidence that this hasn't led to increased killing in shelters" - again a fallacious request, since Onychectomy has always been banned in this country by the RCVS and since 2006 has been illegal, Cats do not get relinquished because of scratching, they get relinquished due to the cannot be bothered to care for it mentality, can't afford it, don't want it, don't like it, my children are allergic etc etc ad infinitum, but never because cats scratch, we accept what cats need to do. We accept the whole cat.

America seems to have a big disconnect going on and is hypnotised by a myth that indoor cats do not need their claws. It is simply not true. If this myth were dispelled then those cats relinquished by believers of nonsense myths and anatomical/behavioural innacuracies would not be relinquished. Please don't ignore the fact that so many declawed cats that are relinquished to shelters end up being killed because their behaviour deems them unfit for rehoming. Cats are easier to rehome when they are in possession of their claws. The AVMA commissioned the study that found that 30% of cats who were declawed exhibited significant behavioural issues and because the AVMA did not like that result, they decided to dismiss 30% as statistically insignificant. Delcawing leads to more cats being killed and more cats having less chance of a home. Delcawing also leads to many cats leading an utterly miserable pain filled life with owners who are clueless about feline psychology.

As for the Dangerous Dogs Act, I couldn't agree more, what a disaster that was. But education didn't work there either and now we have a country full of ill bred, ill treated fighting dogs, the legislation is now moot, ignored, not enforced, Education has not worked. To ban declawing is not knee jerk legislation, it makes sound, effective, humane, scientific sense. American people believe myth, peer anecdote and poor veterinary practice that is cynically all about greed rather than look to the very animal they are crippling.

The ban on declawing big cats is working because it is well thought out. Our ridiculous dogs act was knee jerk. I didn't support, no one I know did. Just because our country legislates doesn't mean we are sheep who have to blindly agree with it. It is allowed you know to disagree with your government. We brits frequently do ;)

and finally "We don't have to educate the entire US population on why they shouldn't declaw cats -- we just need to educate the veterinarian population on why they shouldn't" - without request to declaw from clients, vets would not be offering to declaw cats. Owners and vets need educating, but since the dollar speaks louder than humaneness on this issue, we have a chicken and egg stalemate. MANY thousands of vets offer declawing of 4 month old kittens as a standard. Ring up any vet you like anywhere in America and you will find that they nearly all offer declaw in direct opposition to the AVMA policy. Owners seem to believe that it's just a manicure. With respect, you don't appear to understand what a serious surgery Onychectomy is. Education isn't stopping vets declawing, education isn't stopping ignorant owners demanding their cats be declawed to save them learning how to train it. This is why a law is required, to break the cycle of demand and response, to heal the disconnect between those who own cats and are unable to see them as living, feeling beings and those who just wanna make a buck.


"Education hasn't worked" my ass. The reason you have problems with dangerous dogs IS YOUR LEGISLATION. You have enough problems in your own country to fix so why don't you spend your time tending to your homeland?

You don't appear to get that there is a huge difference between a practice being right/just and there needing to be a law for it. CA is on the verge of bankruptcy and the whole country is in a financial mess - I'm sure you've heard about it across the pond. WE DO NOT NEED our tax dollars being spent on monitoring veternarians when we have 3.5-4 million animals slaughtered in our shelters ever year. btw - how many innocent animals will loose their lives in your country this year?


I'd also like to point out that in the prolly 50 blogs you've posted on the UK and their dangerous dog debacle this is the first post you've had any of these UKers comment on.


Michelle D it isn't MY legislation, it is the legislation of a long discredited government. You did not read my comment properly. You just illustrated that your indignation is more important to you than the wellbeing of animals. With respect, you have no clue as to what action we take to get our laws changed or improve the lot of animals in the UK.

Problems with dangerous dogs arise now, not because of legislation, but because of the wholesale import to the UK of American Urban Gang culture. Dog fighting and dog abuse due to this imported culture is rife, irrespective of the unwise Dangerous Dogs Act. See, you do have to consider the wider picture and also remember that just as in your country, many people believe that they are above the law.

Do you own animals Michelle? Do you not believe that vets should be monitored to ensure that your animals are not harmed by unscrupulous, cynical or incompetent vets? Odd view that for someone keen on animals.

Animals in the UK won't lose their lives in the UK because they have been crippled for money by vets. They will lose their lives because of illegal cruelty, pet over population and apathy.

Now, why are we anti-declaw Brits concerning ourselves with your country? I will tell you - it's because humaneness recognises no territorial boundaries.

Humaneness without frontiers.


A small and respectful point to Michelle D - if it isn't spay/neuter, it's Dangerous Dogs Act that you pro-declaw people keep using to attempt to distract from the debate - the issue is Onychectomy and banning it, not spay/neuter OR the Dangerous Dogs Act.



What's "scary as hell" is that it's NOT "just a handful" of rogue vets who are promoting declawings. It's WAY more than a handful. Except for a select few, vets usually offer "kitten packages" that consist of first year shots, spay/neuter AND declaw. You get the reduced price by buying the entire package. Since I like to put my money where my mouth is, I had to search long and hard for a vet who's beliefs align with mine. One who does not perform declaws. Sadly, I talked to a LOT of vets before I found one.

As long as it's legal, there is going to be a market for declawing. If there's a market, then the vets are going to do it. Legislation will break the cycle. Legislation can also address things like discrimination against apartment dwellers who have cats with claws. It's all part of the change needed to break the cycle.

And, I'll say it again, if declawing wasn't an easy, legal alternative (lazy way out), then people would accept cats for what they are and the claws they have. If they really love cats and want to have one, and there is no lazy out, then they'll take the time to teach the cat not to scratch. Those that can't be bothered to do that shouldn't be having a cat anyway.


Oh, and in case it's not obvious, I'm from the USA.


"WE DO NOT NEED our tax dollars being spent on monitoring veternarians when we have 3.5-4 million animals slaughtered in our shelters ever year."

Where is your evidence that our tax dollars would be spent monitoring veterinarians? You speak as if the reality of these bans includes battering down the doors of vets or installing hidden surveillance systems to monitor their medical practices. That is far-fetched, at best.

"btw - how many innocent animals will loose their lives in your country this year?"

Ad hominem attacks do not further your argument.

Brent: This debate, at its heart, is a state versus city issue. The CVMA was outraged that West Hollywood decided to ban a practice they felt was cruel but the CVMA apparently thought was vital to the profession of veterinary medicine (even though de-clawing does not comprise a large percentage of a vet's income). So the CVMA sponsored a STATE-wide bill that prohibits cities and counties from enacting laws that bans/restricts the so-called "normal" practices of those in the "healing arts". It essentially takes away the rights of cities and counties to outlaw practices they feel are cruel, like de-clawing. The law goes into effect Jan 1, 2010. It's why you're seeing cities in our state grappling with this issue - they have to pass their local laws prior to the Jan 1 deadline.

Unless you have sources to the contrary, there is no evidence that banning declaws will magically increase the shelter population. There is no evidence that de-claws will mean increase in relinquishment (point of fact, there are already a shitload of declawed cats in shelters who are given up b/c of the side-effects of de-claws).

If educating veterinarians were that effective, it would have been done long ago. This is not a new issue in California nor is it like The Paw Project thought to themselves one day they would just introduce a law - education has not worked. And now we are seeing the response to a state law that restricts local discretion to implement and create laws. Very sneaky and disingenuous of the CVMA.


"UK of American Urban Gang culture. Dog fighting and dog abuse due to this imported culture is rife, irrespective of the unwise Dangerous Dogs Act. " LMAO

Apathy Everycat? As in you don't care about the animals they're killing as long as they're not declawed?

Rinalia, who pays for investigating complaints on all these "rogue vets"? Education hasn't worked? Do you think that just because some people still declaw or has anyone done a study on the trends?

btw - go read the title of this post again. This law does nothing to promote life saving programs and will only take away from them. Just like MSN, BSL and the like...

Loca Liisa

Let me say that if I had to choosse between declawing my cat and causing behavior problems after the declawing of my cat or having my cat fixed so unwanted animals do not end up in shelters to be killed? I would choose having my cat fixed. To not fix your pet you will have unwanted animals and the ones who take them in get them declawed and low and behold due to declawing the cat now has behavior issues. They drop those ones off at shelters and those are the majority that get put down because when then find them homes, they are always sent back. I wonder why? We just ripped its life and very meaning of a cat from him/her. They are already born perfect and are born to balance. It is all about a cat. That is a cats nature. To balance. Their claws are used for excersizing their arms and shoulders, for stretching.

I had my cat fixed. I got her in 1994 and several years later I made that mistake. If my Vet would of told me about declawing and informed me of the issues one will have after declawing, I would have never done it. If my Vet would of just educated me about this surgery, I would have never done it and my little girl Roxy would not have arthritis today. She has arthritis because of the amputation surgery which made her put more weight on her hind legs because part of her little fingers were amputated.

It is cruel plain and simple. It is pure laziness on our part to not educate ourselves and train our pets and teach our families how to handle and raise a cat or any other animal of choice. Just laziness. I am ashamed of myself for what I have done but I have educated myself and now I know about this surgery and I will "Pay it Forward" until something is done about it. Not just behavior issues comes from declawing your cat but illnesses and death or even possible amputation due to infections comes out of this horrible act.

I have a question, if someone is going to school to understand gods creatures anatamy, then why take from it knowing the pain it causes? Why are you Vets who are suppose to help a animal in distress but at the same time give it distress due to a outcome of a surgery? We all know what comes after a declawing surgery. Pain and suffering. Wake up, Save A Cat...Don't Declaw A Paw.

Besides, Gina says she is against declawing unless it is a last resort, nothing is a last resort. So which is it, are you for our Feline friends or against them? Get your head back into the light dear. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You make no sense at all Gina. All she is good at is attacking us who believe it is wrong. Do what you all intended to do when going to school, save a animal don't deprive a animal. Don't Declaw...Save A Paw.

The comments to this entry are closed.