I have debated with myself for a few days about responding to Johan's post
regarding the inhumanity of declawing in FML 1107.  But no matter how hard I
try, I always seem to have this irresistable habit of needing to address
contraversial issues.  So I give in again:
 
As a veterinary student quickly approaching my final year, I am increasingly
concerned about animal ethics issues.  I try very hard already to live by the
Veterinarian's Oath, which essentially says we will do what we can to ease
the suffering of animals and uphold their welfare.  Therefore, issues like
declawing are extremely difficult.  To Johan, there seems to be no gray area,
probably because in most of European culture any `cosmetic' alteration is
considered just plain inhumane.  England, for instance, I know for sure
strictly outlaws all elective ear cropping and tail docking despite the fact
that the latter in dogs that work a lot outside, like hunting dogs, has some
strong arguments for it's humanity and perhaps in some cases necessity.  Any
vet there who performs these operations unless they are indicated by severe
injury is severely reprimanded if not suspended by the RCVS (Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons).  I don't know if they outlaw declaw.  But cats don't
seem to be nearly as popular there, so for all I know it's barely an issue.
 
The point I'm trying to make, Johan, is that *here* it's not quite as black
and white; it's considered very much a gray area, I think largely due to
cultural differences.  And it really isn't very fair to label anyone and
everyone who would condone the practice of declawing as inhumane to animals.
While I understand your feelings, I feel your argument has some flaws.  The
one that comes to mind most strongly is that removing an animal's claws
deprives it of it's natural behaviour.  I completely disagree.  Have you ever
seen a declawed cat?  If you had, you would see that it seems to have no
*idea* it's clawless.  They still `sharpen' their claws on the furniture.
Aside from climbing, which an indoor animal has no need for, I can't think of
a single other thing a pet needs claws for.  Cats use their paws to bat
things senseless far more often than they use their claws for defense -- this
includes the big cats in the wild.  And ferrets -- their claws aren't sharp
enough for defense; the only thing they need them for is digging, and given
that ferreting in the U.S. is illegal, that sort of rules out the need for
that, too, at least here.
 
Now, don't get me wrong.  I am not condoning all declawing no holds barred.
For instance, I don't believe cats that are allowed to roam freely outdoors
at all should be declawed -- claws are useful for climbing trees to get away
from dogs and such, and for defense against other cats.  But then again as a
member of the veterinary profession I don't particularly agree with allowing
cats to roam outdoors freely.  (oooo, I heard a *lot* of *what?*'s on that
one!).  I know, I know, many cat lovers think to keep a cat indoors always is
totally against it's nature and extremely inhumane.  I have to agree that a
cat who has ever been allowed the opportunity is likely to crave it again and
again.  But as an someone who grew up with two indoor cats, I can tell
you that although they loved to sit in the sun on the porch or on the steps
and eat grass, they sure wanted that door open a crack in case they had to
make a run for it -- which they did every time a car went by.  I firmly
believe that a cat who never roams freely outside never misses it, and by a
certain age would probably hate it.  Allowing a cat to run freely, far from
being the most humane option, exposes it to any number of incurable fatal
diseases: rabies, Feline Leukemia, and Feline Infectious Peritonitis to name
just a few.  The latter two are neither a quick nor a pleasant death, though
they do both have vaccines; some cats unfortunately do not tolerate the
vaccines very well.
 
       Okay, okay, I'm digressing, that's just one of my soapboxes, it's off
subject, and I'm certainly not out to offend anyone with outdoor cats -- just
food for thought.  But I had to justify my contention that in *my* opinion, a
pet cat should have no real *need* or *use* for it's claws.  So, looking at
it from that point of view, here we have an animal who, by 3-6 months when
cats are usually declawed, is pretty darn attached to it's owner(s) but
despite all attempts at discipline is ripping the house to shreds, and
sometimes its people, too.  Choice #1, bring the cat to the humane society
and take a chance that it might get put to sleep because there is too much
overcrowding to put everyone up for adoption.  Choice #2, have a quick,
simple, and safe operation done that will render the cat happier for not
always being in trouble, and the owners happier for safe belongings and self.
No, the operation is not painless.  But by observation, it seems that it is
not terribly painful and not for more than a few days, provided it's done
right.  After which there is a long and happy life hopefully ahead.  Yes, cat
lovers who can't stand to not have their house ripped apart *could* just deny
themselves and not have cats.  But there are an *awful* lot of cats out there
who need loving homes, and in my mind, declawing is a viable and *not*
inhumane way to ensure the happiness of all involved.  It certainly beats
euthanasia.
 
        So I don't have too much hate mail, let me say that I have a hard
time seeing declawing a ferret as necessary, although again if they were
doing an inordinate amount of damage and the only other option was to get rid
of the ferret who has a loving home already, I *do* see it as a last resort.
But since any ferret claw problems come from digging which can be remedied by
supervision, ferret-proofing, and okay, not *so* much by discipline :), I
can't see it as being necessary in more than the *very* rare case.  And yes,
I do believe it's inhumane in a ferret if all other efforts have not been
made.  Cats are opposite -- it's the rare cat who's claws aren't a
destructive problem, and they aren't usually caged when the owners are gone.
But again, if the claws aren't a problem, I certainly think it would be
inhumane to perform surgery to remove them.
 
        This has been *way* too long and I apologize for that, but it's not
the kind of thing that can be stated simply by `I disagree, because when it
comes to animals welfare and our ethics, it's just never that simple.  Johan,
I certainly think you are entitled to your opinion.  And even if it were
legal where you are I certainly wouldn't expect my arguments to change your
mind and convince you to go out and declaw any of your animals no matter how
much they destroy.  But as a member of the veterinary profession who loves
animals, is deeply concerned for their welfare, *and* doesn't think declawing
is always inhumane, I was pretty offended by the tone of your message, which
implied that I and all who agree with me are inhumane monsters and would be
better off without pets unless they're of the aquatic variety.  By that
implication, you are indicting not only me, but some of the very best
veterinarians I know, for whom I have the deepest respect, and rightly so.  I
respect your right to your opinion.  Kindly respect mine.
 
        Sorry again for the (gawdawful) length, and no flames intended!
 
[Moderator's note: I sure wish this was posted *yesterday* when we had the
shortest issue in a *long* time!  While it is useful to contrast the declawing
of cats and ferrets to make a comparison, let's keep from debating about the
declawing of cats here, ok?  BIG]
 
Laura
 
Laura L'Heureux Kupkee
U. of Illinois Vet Med Class of `96
[log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 1112]