Is it OK to Declaw a Cat?

[Mixolydian]

My cat is declawed and is perfectly fine. Would I do it again? Probably not. But I don't believe that it's "horrible" either.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Just about every cat/dog that becomes a pet is "fixed" in a way that makes them more suitable for being a pet. It's called... getting your pet "fixed," and it is a surgical procedure. And nobody cares that you are sterilizing your pet, altering its personality, denying this creature of God's the pleasure of sexual encounters and its natural right to procreate, to suit your personal desire of ownership.

If you want to be against declawing, be against declawing. Just have the courtesy to be against it for a reason that can pass the hypocrisy test.

Smartest fucking post in this thread

 

[tynopik]

I can't find any good #'s, but it seems safe to assume that your average outdoor cat is going to have a shorter life expectancy than your average indoor cat.

there's a difference between 20% longer and 1500% longer

 

[MongGrel]

What's worse: One surgery as a kitten or a life time of punishment for clawing everything in the house up?

You basically shouldn't own a cat then, problem solved.

 

[MongGrel]

pretty much.

I've trained our cat to not jump up on the counters or my desk or claw the couch... when I'm actually present.

then I'll get home from work to discover that "someone" hit the keyboard and woke my PC up from sleep mode, the tablecloth is all bunched up from "someone" sliding across it, and there's a nice little pile of stuffing that's been pulled from the couch arm.

They are sneaky that way.

Of course I've owned a Samoyed in the past that was right up there with cats for being a sneaky guy

 

[Red Squirrel]

Cats do whatever the hell they want. They know what's right and wrong but they only choose to do it when you're around. My cat goes on the counters all the time but knows she's not suppose to. She only does it if I'm not around and only reason i know is because sometimes stuff that was on the counter is now on the ground.

Left some twist ties on the counter, did she ever have fun with those. I buy all these toys for her, she goes for the twist ties I forgot to throw out.

 

[Mixolydian]

Cats do whatever the hell they want. They know what's right and wrong but they only choose to do it when you're around. My cat goes on the counters all the time but knows she's not suppose to. She only does it if I'm not around and only reason i know is because sometimes stuff that was on the counter is now on the ground.

Left some twist ties on the counter, did she ever have fun with those. I buy all these toys for her, she goes for the twist ties I forgot to throw out.

My cat also goes nuts over twist-ties. It's cute.

 

[lozina]

My cat also goes nuts over twist-ties. It's cute.

Huh, gotta see how my cat reacts to those. Laser pointers dont do it for her- she might jump on it initially but very quickly realizes it's stupid. She does love the popcorn packaging and also the plastic ring they shrink wrap around bottle caps - she kicks them around between her paws across the floor like she is dribbling a ball on a soccer field. So cute!

 

[SP33Demon]

Oh, and declawing?

Yeah, having your scrotum sliced wide open, and your testicles plucked out - or your abdomen sliced open and your ovaries chopped out - no one's against those procedures on humane grounds, but declawing is, of course, cruel.

I'd never have an older cat declawed. But, I couldn't care less if someone wants a kitten declawed.

Spaying/neutering saves a lot more lives which is why it's essential. De-clawing is never essential if the shelter can educate the adopter on how to deal with a cat that scratches things. You guys are making it sound so dramatic like "what if the cat was going to die or be declawed" when that's not usually how it happens. People have the capacity to learn and most prospective owners aren't going to give an ultimatum that the cat has to be declawed or they won't adopt.

 

[Ferzerp]

Spaying/neutering saves a lot more lives which is why it's essential. De-clawing is never essential if the shelter can educate the adopter on how to deal with a cat that scratches things. You guys are making it sound so dramatic like "what if the cat was going to die or be declawed" when that's not usually how it happens. People have the capacity to learn and most prospective owners aren't going to give an ultimatum that the cat has to be declawed or they won't adopt.

This doesn't address the argument that is being refuted here though.

Dr Pizza is pointing out the cognitive dissonance required to say that declawing is mutilation, but castration is not.

They're both mutilation, but one is socially acceptable. In the past both were socially acceptable. This leads me to believe that most of the opinions are more societally influenced than some absolute.

We're ok with one mutilation, but not the other. However, the reason we're against the second mutilation is that it is mutilation! But we're ok with it in the first case due to some greater good? This does not strike me as a good position. I am saying this as a person who pretty much agrees that declawing is bad, but the earlier post that pointed out the silliness of the reasoning people have has me unsettled.


edit: a point that most people due to emotionally charged responses are flat out ignoring to be honest. What good are your convictions if you won't allow them to be challenged? How do you know they are well founded?

 

[Grooveriding]

Yes they are both mutilation, but it's ignoring the differing premise behind both procedures, making it largely a pedantic argument.

Cats breed like crazy, they are birthing machines. A female cat left to her devices will pop out a litter of 4-6 kittens every year. So, left to their own devices and accounting for all her fertile years you are in the range of 50-70 or so kittens for every female cat. Now what happens to those kittens and the plethora of kittens those cats then produce ? Cats are domestic animals and there are already too many breeding uncontrolled resulting in irresponsible owners surrendering them and them being euthanized en masse.

The purpose of sterilizing cats is twofold; it prevents huge number of cats being born only to be killed when they wind up at animal services, and for feral cats it prevents what would become a large pest problem. If you have ever been to some European countries like Spain or Italy you'd see that there are feral cats everywhere because there are no checks against it. It works there because of the climate and people tend not to care, in North America you'd probably see people out with their rifles shooting them.

Declawing is done so owners don't have to worry about their furniture. Losing their claws prevents or hinders cats from performing functions they do daily. To take that same context to sterilization; they mate rarely and unlike humans don't take pleasure in mating, it's purely instinct. But yes, there is an argument that a key part of their nature is removed via sterilization.

I do think there is a stark difference between the two motivations for these different procedures though, and as is usual, the devil is in those details. The fact that many vets refuse to perform the procedure whereas they will all fix them speaks bounds.

This is obviously a subjective matter though. I am certainly on the side where I believe if you want to own a cat but feel you have to declaw it, you ought to get a different pet. The scratching of furniture is something, that with some time devoted to it, you can train your cat out of when they are young. I have little patience for laziness in the face of voluntarily taken on responsibilities.

 

[Ferzerp]

You're still dodging the point though. The main argument we see against declawing is "it's mutilation". The same argument can be applied to castration but no one does.

I see you bringing a mass of other points in to it, but it still doesn't address the simple fact that we will all say that declawing is wrong due to the mutilation aspect, but no one says castration is wrong despite it being mutilation. You're talking motivations and convenience, but it doesn't address the core matter. Why is one mutilation praised and the other is vilified? You say that the cats will breed like crazy otherwise. Can we not make the argument that a responsible owner would not allow a cat to breed? It is merely the owner's laziness that puts the animal in the position to make babies. In this light, the castration is also merely a convenience. This is the same argument used to vilify and criticize those who chose to declaw a cat.

Additionally you talk about what operations a veterinarian will perform as justification, but provide no basis for why we should consider a veterinarian some sort of moral compass. They are, in fact, individuals just like us, making value judgments on the procedures the same as we do. We are talking two entirely elective procedures here. Neither is medically necessary. There really are no grounds for trying to make an appeal to an expert here when the expert is an expert on medical issues. I can see if you were saying that ethicists agree with you, but saying vets do doesn't really provide any weight.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Hi,

I've got a cat that's always been a little 'off'. He's violent, scratches a lot, kills lots of little animals in my yard, hates to be pet, etc.

The cat is awesome. don't change a thing.

and no, don't declaw your cats. it's not good to take away their natural defenses.

 

[SP33Demon]

You're still dodging the point though. The main argument we see against declawing is "it's mutilation". The same argument can be applied to castration but no one does.

I see you bringing a mass of other points in to it, but it still doesn't address the simple fact that we will all say that declawing is wrong due to the mutilation aspect, but no one says castration is wrong despite it being mutilation. You're talking motivations and convenience, but it doesn't address the core matter. Why is one mutilation praised and the other is vilified? You say that the cats will breed like crazy otherwise. Can we not make the argument that a responsible owner would not allow a cat to breed? It is merely the owner's laziness that puts the animal in the position to make babies. In this light, the castration is also merely a convenience. This is the same argument used to vilify and criticize those who chose to declaw a cat.

Additionally you talk about what operations a veterinarian will perform as justification, but provide no basis for why we should consider a veterinarian some sort of moral compass. They are, in fact, individuals just like us, making value judgments on the procedures the same as we do. We are talking two entirely elective procedures here. Neither is medically necessary. There really are no grounds for trying to make an appeal to an expert here when the expert is an expert on medical issues. I can see if you were saying that ethicists agree with you, but saying vets do doesn't really provide any weight.

This is an extremely myopic view. Why are you stopping at "is it mutilation or not"? You have to look at why the alteration is happening. To alter a cat's reproductive ability serves much more of a function than "I'm too lazy to learn how to train my cat from scratching things with their claws", which owners can control via training. It has nothing to do with ethics, but the fact that there are already many more cats than adopters and more cats running wild in the streets that affects everyone. For example, hunting deer has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with pure population control; if there are too many deer then that has very negative consequences as do cats running wild (which affects everyone in society). A cat scratching something is not a burden on society, but if it was then I'm sure declawing would be more accepted as well.

Summary: Comparing the ability to control an animal population vs scratching things is obviously not the same.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

No

 

[Ferzerp]

This is an extremely myopic view. Why are you stopping at "is it mutilation or not"? You have to look at why the alteration is happening. To alter a cat's reproductive ability serves much more of a function than "I'm too lazy to learn how to train my cat from scratching things with their claws", which owners can control via training. It has nothing to do with ethics, but the fact that there are already many more cats than adopters and more cats running wild in the streets that affects everyone. For example, hunting deer has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with pure population control; if there are too many deer then that has very negative consequences as do cats running wild (which affects everyone in society). A cat scratching something is not a burden on society, but if it was then I'm sure declawing would be more accepted as well.

Summary: Comparing the ability to control an animal population vs scratching things is obviously not the same.

So what you are saying is that some mutilation is ok?

Does this not suggest that mutilation in and of itself is not an absolute bad, in your world view? The end justifies the means? So, if the choices are between claw mutilation, and euthanasia for the animal, you would be for that particular mutilation? Or is there something else going on here that we haven't pinpointed yet?

Again, I'm going to state that I don't like the idea of declawing animals. I am just trying to reconcile why we take such a blasé stance on neutering and get up in arms over declawing.

 

[WT]

Patiently awaiting the parody thread 'Is it OK to claw a cat' ??

 

[DrPizza]

This is an extremely myopic view. Why are you stopping at "is it mutilation or not"? You have to look at why the alteration is happening. To alter a cat's reproductive ability serves much more of a function than "I'm too lazy to learn how to train my cat from scratching things with their claws", which owners can control via training. It has nothing to do with ethics, but the fact that there are already many more cats than adopters and more cats running wild in the streets that affects everyone. For example, hunting deer has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with pure population control; if there are too many deer then that has very negative consequences as do cats running wild (which affects everyone in society). A cat scratching something is not a burden on society, but if it was then I'm sure declawing would be more accepted as well.

Summary: Comparing the ability to control an animal population vs scratching things is obviously not the same.

Not all owners have the time to take all of the steps for the training. And, is the training instant, 100% overnight success? I.e., the owner brings home a cat and it never once scratches the couch? That might be more of a risk than some people are willing to take with expensive furniture.

Again, I've had plenty of cats, and just had an obnoxiously friendly kitten adopt us a few nights ago. And, when you try to think how friendly a kitten has to be to be obnoxiously friendly, you're not even close. The obnoxiously friendly kitten ran up my leg and ran up my shirt so it could cuddle up against my throat - while I was walking. (I think that in a former life, it was a parrot. Its preferred location if someone's awake in the house is on someone's shoulder. Or rubbing its head and side against your mouth while you're sitting down to eat.) Shirt is somewhat ruined from the claws when it ran up the shirt. I wouldn't consider for a second getting him declawed.

But, I'd like you to address this neutering thing. Any female outdoor cat who is in heat is going to find a mate, period. I can't quite figure out the point of neutering a cat, unless you have a male and a female indoor cat and never let them out the door. You let a female out the door when she's in heat, she's getting pregnant. So, why would you mutilate a male cat? Is it to show no favoritism for one sex of cat over the other?

 

[surfsatwerk]

So, why would you mutilate a male cat?

teritorial spraying

 

[norseamd]

Dr Pizza is pointing out the cognitive dissonance required to say that declawing is mutilation, but castration is not. They're both mutilation, but one is socially acceptable. In the past both were socially acceptable. This leads me to believe that most of the opinions are more societally influenced than some absolute. We're ok with one mutilation, but not the other. However, the reason we're against the second mutilation is that it is mutilation! But we're ok with it in the first case due to some greater good? This does not strike me as a good position. I am saying this as a person who pretty much agrees that declawing is bad, but the earlier post that pointed out the silliness of the reasoning people have has me unsettled. edit: a point that most people due to emotionally charged responses are flat out ignoring to be honest. What good are your convictions if you won't allow them to be challenged? How do you know they are well founded?

And this is true. And I would say that neutering is actually far worse than declawing especially when you also take into consideration all of the psychological stuff that would go along with neutering. And I remember that there was something about Italians who consider it unfitting or heretical to spay your pets.

 

[DrPizza]

teritorial spraying

Excellent reason.

 

[Ichinisan]

It's wrong. Especially if the cat ever goes outside.

My cat only scratches on a couple of things: 1) his scratching post and 2) a chair I don't care about. I actually can't remember the last time he scratched on the chair and there's still no visible damage.

 

[DisturbedRamm]

i declawed my cat and have had zero issues, those that say that it hurts the cat knows nothing about the topic

 

[Ichinisan]

But then again. I consider cat towers (with carpet) almost essential for any cat owner. Don't have a cat without a cat tower. $80-100 at a store.

Mine was $15 at Petsmart. Base with tower and small platform on top. Everything wrapped in carpet except half the tower is wrapped in twine or something (cat's favorite side). He loves the thing and often sits on top to beg for treats (I say he's "gargoyling" when he does that).

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I've concluded I will not declaw the cat and allow him to be an in-door cat. We are moving soon and we'll be in the city and being outside will not be an option.