When the cat attacked him, he literally sunk his claws to his torso and started running across his entire body. We had to throw a blanket on top of the cat just so he would stop. I agree that there's certain ways to avoid stuff like this, but there's lots of times where an animal can misinterpret things and attack on instinct.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Declawing cats
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
When the cat attacked him, he literally sunk his claws to his torso and started running across his entire body. We had to throw a blanket on top of the cat just so he would stop. I agree that there's certain ways to avoid stuff like this, but there's lots of times where an animal can misinterpret things and attack on instinct.
I don't deny that this can happen, but it sounds like an awful and unlikely event. Declawing a cat for this is like removing dogs' teeth because a corgi bit someone.
I'd never heard of de-clawing before (UK) and personally it seems a bit lazy and cruel (and if you can't be bothered to train your pets you probably shouldn't get pets). I've had cats claw at sofas/ carpets before but we just trained them not to by getting a scratching pad and by disciplining them when they clawed the wrong things. Didn't take too long to get them to use the pad and de-clawing just seems like the lazy option.
My family had a cat. It wasn't declawed. One parents worked full time, the other part time, but most days of the week.
We did not have a furniture problem. Any instance of bad behaviour was corrected.
The cat was also let outdoors and often - I can't understand the mentality of keeping a creature that naturally wants to be outside, inside.
If you can't look after your cat without removing its claws, don't have a cat.
Then again, I've never actually heard of declawing a cat in the UK. I would expect most of the people I've met in life would consider it cruel. The same with clipping the wings of pet birds - that also seems to be a practice much more prevalent in the US compared to my experience in the UK.
It's just unnecessary mutilation so that owners who do not have the time and diligence to properly take care of a pet can physically shape their pet into something more fitting of their lifestyle.
Is this practiced anywhere else in the world or is this an American thing?
I live in the UK and have never heard of this before in my life. I certainly don't think it's an accepted practice here. Infact not knowing any better, if someone told me they had de-clawed their cat my first phone call would probably be to the RSPCA.
Sounds cruel as fuck to me. Whatever your reason for de-clawing a cat is, if you value that more than the wellbeing of the cat then you shouldn't be owning an animal under any circumstances.
I live in the UK and have never heard of this before in my life. I certainly don't think it's an accepted practice here. Infact not knowing any better, if someone told me they had de-clawed their cat my first phone call would probably be to the RSPCA.
Sounds cruel as fuck to me. Whatever your reason for de-clawing a cat is, if you value that more than the wellbeing of the cat then you shouldn't be owning an animal under any circumstances.
StalkerUKCG
Banned
Voice of reason. Keeps claws.
Its practiced in Canada as well and is a booming business unfortunately. =(
I remember playing with my friends late Siamese cat, its front claws were removed, I felt sad when I found out.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
Canada does it. Can't speak for Mexico but maybe it's a NA thing.
A heavily supplemented life if you want to get the same benefits, but don't turn this thread into another of those threads. It get's pretty fucking tiring. Anyway, OP why get a cat if you don't intend to train it not to scratch your furniture?
Because AWWWW KITTY
Fuck, might as well stick to youtube then.
(Good morning all).
Okay, so let's say I wanted to get a cat but also wanted to get it declawed. You prevent me from declawing, so now I don't get a cat. The result: there is one more cat in the US without an owner. Do you consider this a better result than letting me have the cat and letting me declaw it in the process? That is not a rhetorical question, as I believe the answer is complex. This concern may be less valid in other countries which do not have a significant stray/homeless cat problem, but in the US the problem is very significant. In the US, one less cat owner = one more homeless cat.
As another discussion, I am very interested in how so many people seem to claim that it is simple and easy to train cats to never scratch furniture; I have personally seen several cats that significantly damaged their houses and others that were trained fairly well but who still scratched furniture from time to time.
It's entirely possible that these are extreme outliers. That is the nature of anecdotal evidence. But I must say that I am skeptical of the claim that it's very easy to train a cat not to scratch and that this habit is maintained with perfect consistency for the life of the cat in all instances.
suiaryu said:
Cats that are owned but are let outdoors live on average 2-3 years less than cats that are indoors all the time. Cats which live exclusively indoors also have less health complications.
If your argument is "okay fine, but they aren't happy," I'd like to see your basis for that, because I read quite a bit last night on that exact topic and could find no evidence of it or research to back it. That strikes me, again, as an appeal to nature which is not logical. For instance, humans were also evolved to live out doors, and yet we have adapted extremely well to living inside -- so much so that most of us would now be very unhappy to be forced to live outside.
Further, as already mentioned, house cats kill billions of birds and other animals every year in the US. I just want to make sure you're aware that you could in some small part prevent that by not letting your cat outdoors.
This isn't to suggest you're an evil bad jerk if you let your cat outdoors, mind you. I just want to make it clear that there are very good arguments for not doing so and the suggestion that it's cruel or unreasonable does not strike me as a position based on solid evidence or reason.
Ravensmash
Member
Bear in mind that while the majority of domestic cats are kept indoors only, in the US, in the UK the vast vast majority are allowed free access to the outdoors.
I don't know anyone who keeps their cat indoors tbh.
Declawing a cat sounds absolutely horrible though.
I don't know anyone who keeps their cat indoors tbh.
Declawing a cat sounds absolutely horrible though.
I'll never declaw a cat.
Catsplay with their claws, they use them to jump to places and get a grip with them. Declawing them only benefits the owner of the cat so ou don't get scratched furniture and can play with the cat with your handswithout getting a bit hurt.
But its easy to stop a cat for doing those both things, especially if it's a young cat. An already grown up cat? that is another story, its difficult to tech them but I would resort to using those plastic things you can put on their claws so they don't destroy anything.
Cutting their testicles (sorry, don't know the english word for that) serves a purpouse to the cat, it helps them be more happy as they don't have that strong need to mate, female cats don't get psycological prenancies and such.
My 2 cents
Well, for once, you need to get a nice thingie for them to scratch on. It can be difficult to find the adecuate one, but you can steer them in the rigth direction if it comes with a ball or something for them to play on (If they don't like it, use a bit of catnip). That way they play and scratch their claws and get used to do it in there.
This is gobolino, my cat. He is one moth old and in this photo it was the first day at home. He is playing with his scratcher thanks to the ball attached to it, he just loves it. Im sure he will not scratch anythig in the house thanks to this, in fact he has been here for 2 weeks after the photo and hasn't scratch anything at all.
Same with my old cat, we got her an scratcher and she never ever scratched anywhere. Truth is, we had to buy 3 different ones before we found one she loved, but once that last once arrived, she focused all her scratches into that one.
Catsplay with their claws, they use them to jump to places and get a grip with them. Declawing them only benefits the owner of the cat so ou don't get scratched furniture and can play with the cat with your handswithout getting a bit hurt.
But its easy to stop a cat for doing those both things, especially if it's a young cat. An already grown up cat? that is another story, its difficult to tech them but I would resort to using those plastic things you can put on their claws so they don't destroy anything.
Cutting their testicles (sorry, don't know the english word for that) serves a purpouse to the cat, it helps them be more happy as they don't have that strong need to mate, female cats don't get psycological prenancies and such.
My 2 cents
Well, for once, you need to get a nice thingie for them to scratch on. It can be difficult to find the adecuate one, but you can steer them in the rigth direction if it comes with a ball or something for them to play on (If they don't like it, use a bit of catnip). That way they play and scratch their claws and get used to do it in there.
This is gobolino, my cat. He is one moth old and in this photo it was the first day at home. He is playing with his scratcher thanks to the ball attached to it, he just loves it. Im sure he will not scratch anythig in the house thanks to this, in fact he has been here for 2 weeks after the photo and hasn't scratch anything at all.
Same with my old cat, we got her an scratcher and she never ever scratched anywhere. Truth is, we had to buy 3 different ones before we found one she loved, but once that last once arrived, she focused all her scratches into that one.
I don't know why, and I'm hoping someone more capable than me will deconstruct this better than I can, but this sounds like absolutely appalling logic to somehow justify or support this.
My immediate response is that no, the cat is not better off with you as the owner prepared to mutilate its feet. Leave the cat either for a more responsible owner or the safe care of the shelter.
Okay, that's fine. If you believe a cat would live a better life in a shelter than with an owner who will give it more space and individual care but who wants to declaw it, I don't think we have a way to immediately resolve that disagreement. This is not intended as a sarcastic comment.
"Individual care" is an interesting choice of words when talking about a veterinary procedure which involves removing an important part of the cats anatomy for completely selfish reasons that are of absolutely no benefit to the cat whatsoever, and infact have a direct negative impact on the cats life.
Leaving the cat in the shelter would at least mean the cat is cared for at some basic level, and would give it a second chance of being picked up by an owner who would buy the cat for what it is and not rid it of it's claws for their own benefit.
I don't know if this is a real scenario or completely theoretical. In either instance, please, just walk away from the shelter and do something else. You shouldn't be owning an animal.
BrightEyedPanic
Member
Literally, the only way your opinion holds water against declawing in this thread is if you do not encourage animal cruelty by consuming any animal product. Oh? You eat meat? Hope all you omnivore hypocrites go to hell for being barbarians yourself.
It doesn't matter how many times you guys bring that argument, it will always be BS.
Individual care, in this case, meant people playing directly with and attending to a cat personally. In a way that sheltered cats obviously do not receive.
A house cat is cared for at much more than a basic level in most instances; better food, more room to play, more individual time with owners. That is the reason why placing cats in homes is considered preferable to keeping them in a shelter forever. You would need to weigh these benefits against the downsides of mutilation. Our judgement on that may be different, but again, I don't see any reasonable way to bridge the difference.
This is not logical. At least, not in the US. If I want a cat but do not get one because I cannot declaw it, this is one more cat without a home, full stop. Even if the cat I was going to get is eventually picked up, that means some other cat who would have been picked is now left homeless instead. This other family would have picked the "other cat" but now picked my cat since it was still available. Net result: one more cat without a home. Just a different cat.
I am not looking to get a cat.
At the expense of it's claws..
But you can literally go around forever down this line. It's a continuous loop and should not impact on your decision to re-home an animal. Whether you rescue a cat from a shelter or not, there is always going to be "another cat without a home". In my personal opinion, I think it's absolutely terrible to consider removing a cats claws and saying "well at least this cat has a home, what about the others?" as justification for that. It's completely nonsensical, and in my opinion if that is a persons thinking then they should leave the moral decision about what to do with all the other homeless cats to someone who is going to keep their cats claws.
And I'm pleased to hear this.
Correct. I am asking: which do you consider more important? You seem to conclude that depriving a cat of better food, more room to play, more individual time with owners is appropriate if the downside is that these owners will declaw the cat.
Again, that is not an unreasonable position. But I also do not think it's unreasonable to reach the opposite conclusion, and to recommend that it's better to have a cat in a permanent, personal home than it is have him in a shelter for his entire life if the cost of doing so is to declaw the cat.
I want to emphasize again that many animal health experts recommend declawing (e.g. many veterinarians in the US) or consider it a choice of the owner (e.g. the animal humane society). The purpose of repeating this: I am not out on some fringe moral limb, here. There is mainstream acceptance of the practice in the US and other countries (e.g. Canada) even amongst experts and activists.
Responding to your edit:
Correct, that is my point. Somewhere, some cat doesn't get adopted that would have. This also clearly scales up large; if you deny every single person who wants to adopt a cat the right to declaw in the US, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of potential owners will elect not to own a cat. Obviously, this will significantly and materially impact the number of homeless cats in the US. It is important to note that the US already has a homeless problem for cats, so this may be a particular problem in the US that isn't particularly relevant in some other countries where cat homelessness is less prevalent.
Why not? Again, one less cat adopted = one more homeless cat, at some point in the line. These are discrete entities, and it does not represent infinite mathematical regression.
And now there will be one more than that without a home. You cannot just wave the concept away by saying, "well there are already a lot of homeless cats." Yes, there are. And if you deny someone who wants to adopt because they want to declaw the cat, then there is now one more.
It is not nonsensical.
The decision is indeed made by shelters in the US. We must apply to own cats, even free ones. Those moral decision makers in almost all cases do indeed provide cats to people who are going to declaw them.
So the "moral decision" is taken out of the owners hands, and the people who are given that responsibility choose to give people cats even if they are going to declaw them.
Correct, that is my point. Somewhere, some cat doesn't get adopted that would have. This also clearly scales up large; if you deny every single person who wants to adopt a cat the right to declaw in the US, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of potential owners will elect not to own a cat. Obviously, this will significantly and materially impact the number of homeless cats in the US. It is important to note that the US already has a homeless problem for cats, so this may be a particular problem in the US that isn't particularly relevant in some other countries where cat homelessness is less prevalent.
Why not? Again, one less cat adopted = one more homeless cat, at some point in the line. These are discrete entities, and it does not represent infinite mathematical regression.
And now there will be one more than that without a home. You cannot just wave the concept away by saying, "well there are already a lot of homeless cats." Yes, there are. And if you deny someone who wants to adopt because they want to declaw the cat, then there is now one more.
It is not nonsensical.
The decision is indeed made by shelters in the US. We must apply to own cats, even free ones. Those moral decision makers in almost all cases do indeed provide cats to people who are going to declaw them.
So the "moral decision" is taken out of the owners hands, and the people who are given that responsibility choose to give people cats even if they are going to declaw them.
BrightEyedPanic
Member
No? Why? Because it makes your stance inconsistent? Cruelty to other animals is "natural?" It's okay (for our bodies never intended to eat meat) to kill/support killing living creatures for food because its easier than being conscious? I don't judge people for eating meat. I don't think they are all bad people, but maaaaan, if you're going to judge people for declawing, sterilizing, or keeping pets indoors....you better be consistent.
Diprosalic
Banned
the life of my cat really sucks, getting petted all day, eating great food, free healthcare and no predators waiting to kill you.
she really hates it here.
Declawing seems like a pretty radical solution. So radical that it's illegal here (France) and, as many other have said, in many other european countries. So we can't legally do it, and, despite that, we have tons of cats (a good percentage of them live inside) and we live well with them. It shows it can be avoided.
Now if a cat has a behavioral problem and ruins everything in a house, ok, maybe you can think about it, but I would say a normal cat won't scratch everything, you just have to provide him with some specific toys like this.
Even a cat who lives inside uses his claws to keep balance, play and even mark his territory (cats have glands in their paws which are stimulated when they scratch things).
I won't call declawing torture, but it should be considered a pretty brutal procedure and the last option if every other fail.
Now if a cat has a behavioral problem and ruins everything in a house, ok, maybe you can think about it, but I would say a normal cat won't scratch everything, you just have to provide him with some specific toys like this.
Even a cat who lives inside uses his claws to keep balance, play and even mark his territory (cats have glands in their paws which are stimulated when they scratch things).
I won't call declawing torture, but it should be considered a pretty brutal procedure and the last option if every other fail.
But isn't it quite likely that every pro is for the owner, and every con is for the cat?
And is considered barbaric and against the law in numerous other countries, including the UK, Australia, the vast majority of Europe, parts of South America..
If you want to talk about a legal or veterinary stance on this rather than a moral one, or what is best for the animal itself, then the US and Canada are outliers in this discussion, not the definitive say.
It's a procedure which rids the cat of a vital part of its anatomy, rids the cat of some of it's function and has a negative medical impact on the animal later on in life. It has absolutely no benefit to the cat and serves no reason other than a selfish one for the owner on the basis of scratched furniture or not wanting to be scratched themselves, at the expense of any effort to train the animal. I'm really, really glad I live in a country where any discussion about this ridiculous and cruel procedure is negated by law.
Capital_Five
Member
I don't know if anyone brought this up before but the actual percentages of animals who are euthanized are pretty important to note here.
Not that it makes all the difference, but it's good to know some of the odds that determine if that cat that you were going to take home and declaw was going to end up dead most likely otherwise.
Animal Humane Society said:
Not that it makes all the difference, but it's good to know some of the odds that determine if that cat that you were going to take home and declaw was going to end up dead most likely otherwise.
oneils
Member
How do you even know this? How can you possibly know that taking away the option of declawing a cat will lead to hundreds of thousands of people all of a sudden electing not to own a cat?
It is nonsensical. Other countries have banned it and there has not been a rash of cat abandonment. I really think the declawing stuff is a red herring. If cat owners in North America are abandoning their cats it is not because they have claws. If people are deciding not to own a cat, where is the evidence to suggest it is because they have claws?
Only if you consider "has a home and a safe indoor environment" not a pro for a cat. I think the same basic logic could be applied to neutering: if someone cut off your testicles and told you that it was really for the best for you, I'm not sure you'd agree (I know, I've just engaged in humanization, which is not logical).
Also, it is certainly more convenient for birds and other animals, who are less likely to be killed by a declawed cat.
But broadly, I agree that most of the benefit is for the human. I am just not sure why that's unreasonable. We do lots and lots and lots of things which gravely inconvenience animals every day for our own benefit. That's something of an understatement, given that many times "inconvenience" means "we kill them because we prefer the taste of a hamburger to a salad."
If you object to all animal pain for the convenience of humans, then your position may be logically consistent, but it isn't a position most people agree with, I suspect. At least not at this point in time with current human technologies.
Twilight Gap
Member
Ravensmash
Member
You make it sound like declawing is necessary though.
Like others have said, provide toys/scratching posts if the cat has a tendency to scratch, don't chop off its fingers.
It's basic economics: increasing the cost of ownership of anything decreases demand. This is referred to as a simple supply/demand curve but can also be represented as elasticity of demand.
It is not.
Again, it is a clear logical consequence of basic economic principles: higher cost of ownership of anything decreases demand. These effects would be much less noticeable in countries where there was not already a significant cat surplus.
Capital_Five
Member
Sorry, yeah, I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Just thought it might be seen as less of an evil if it means saving cats lives in general. This is maybe my own bias but I think a lot more people would be willing to adopt a cat and take care of it if they knew for certain it wasn't going to scratch up their things and \ or don't have time or interest or knowledge in training them. With that last part, I also don't mean to imply it's difficult but I also don't think that most people think about training a cat. I know the immediate reaction to that is that the pet owner would be bad in other ways but I don't think there's a definitive link between owners who declaw their cats and general neglect or animal abuse.
Absolutely, which suggests that reasonable people can disagree on the topic. If you want to go even further, large portions of China feel it is acceptable to eat cats, let alone declaw them.
The US, Canada, and China, among others. China and the United States are two of the three largest countries in the world by population, so you'll have a difficult time arguing this is some fringe perspective. If you want to argue against it, you'll need to use logic and evidence and not an argumentum ad populum .
Okay, let's assume for a moment that I completely agree with this (Which I do not). I would then ask: why is it not okay for us to mutilate a cat for the convenience of the owner? We mutilate animals all the time for our convenience. You probably neutered your cats. You also are probably not a vegan, which not only mutilates but kills animals, so that you can eat a hamburger instead of a salad with beans on the side. You probably buy lots of electronic products that cause enormous pollution which can directly harm local wildlife around the manufacturing plants.
Further, why are you giving no consideration to all the animals that your cat will kill? If you let your cat outside, the direct result of not declawing your cat will be that it will kill many more animals in its lifetime. Why is that okay?
Shin Kojima
Banned
I don't think you really love animals of you do things like this or clip a birds wings.
I'd retool my house to fit an animal I wanted, not the other way round.
edit:
Just fucking don't get an animal if you need to tailor it to your personal 'needs' first.
I'd retool my house to fit an animal I wanted, not the other way round.
edit:
You really think mutilating your animal to protect your furniture is the same as it hunting smaller animals because it's in his nature? Really?
Just fucking don't get an animal if you need to tailor it to your personal 'needs' first.
Would you eat an animal even when readily available substitutes are available? Or is that okay because you never personally see the animal that comprises your hamburger/sausage/whatever? Most animals which are bred for meat production live horrible lives, and for which the sole purpose is to be slaughtered. Some of these animals (e.g. pigs) are more intelligent than cats or (most) birds.
Does anyone who eats meat in a first world country also not love animals?
I'm not talking about the cat's nature, I'm talking about human nature. The obvious, clear consequence of your choice not to declaw your cat is that many birds will die. You are in significant part responsible for that -- in fact, I would say more responsible than you cat, because at least you have the intellectual capacity to understand the ramifications of your choices.
To make this explicitly clear -- cats are considered an invasive species in the United States. I do not mean by loonies, I mean by biologists. Why should we hold no responsibility for knowingly releasing an invasive species in to our environment which can devastate local wildlife?
Ravensmash
Member
This.
Besides, if you have a cat that goes outside then declawing is potentially dangerous because the cat no longer has any protection should it get into a fight, alongside being unable to grip onto fences, etc. properly should it need to make a speedy getaway.
I feel like you're trying to be rational about this too much while for most people it's an emotional decision. I also find it hard to believe cats are just as happy indoors as outdoors since all the cats I know have a natural tendency to go outside and lie in the sun or just play around. I also don't know why you haven't given any of the suggestions to just buy a scratching pole any mention. It seems pretty straightforward to me, if you'd rather declaw the cat instead of pony up the small amount of money a scratching pole costs you shouldn't own a cat. You can't put a monetary value on the cats happiness or it's "rights" but it's supposed to be a friend and companion so if you're willing to do that for the small inconvenience he might cause you...It just seems like you've never had an emotional connection with a pet before.
I don't own a cat but do have a dog so I can sort of relate.
EDIT: It's the same to me as babies, most people get annoyed by other people's babies but you'll always have much stronger feelings towards your own, just because it's yours. So it's not like I don't value other animals' existence but I value my companion's more because you've built up an emotional connection to them.
- Status