Need opinions about declawing
Herman-Munster
dearly,
I also have a wife of 18 years who is sick of all the torn up furnature.
I have tried training sprays,scartching posts, water pistol etc.. all to no
avail,
So the wife wants 'em declawed and says everyone she has talked to says
their cats were fine after the procedure,
But the few people i've talked to said their cats acted kinda wierd and
never seemed the same.
I'm really at my whits ends and could use any constructive input you could
give as far as first hand experiences or non biased (I've found plenty of
PETA type sites) web sites.
Thanks
Shannon
Karen
actual cat trees? Those dinky scratching posts found in stores are generally
not very good. They like furniture because it is STURDY. Look at
www.maxshouse.com for the technical scoop. SHOW HER THE PICTURES. Tell her
the risks. Ask her is it whether they are affected or not "is it right to
ampute parts of the body when inconvenient"? That's what it is, whether
people like it or not, whether the cats are OK or not. Would she like to
risk them turning into inappropriate peers instead? Or biters? It happens.
Adult cats have the worst time adapting to the procedure. We aren't talking
about kittens here. Also check out www.stopdeclaw.com.
Karen
"Herman-Munster" <cants...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:E53S8.318783$cQ3.17775@sccrnsc01...
Karen
key and many people blame the cats when consistancy in training is the
problem. Not getting down on you, just trying to root out the difficulties.
Karen
"Herman-Munster" <cants...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:E53S8.318783$cQ3.17775@sccrnsc01...
Cynthia Nollner
done at 3 months. She learned to be even more sure in jumps and things. But
still make mistakes sometimes. I thought it made her toes look ugly. So
uneven, I thought also more sensitive and rightly so. I was a fool once,
never again. Cats can be taught not to scratch furniture. And beside,
accidents happen and they do need their claws if they ever get out. I guess
that I believe pets are more important than furniture. We have an old dog,
always allowed on the couch. So new couch in living room came. She was not
allowed on it. After a while got new den couch and loveseat. She took one
look at them and Knew they were going to be a big No. Never offered to get
on them either. Of course it helped that she inherited the old recliner.
:o)
Seem the wife might want some new furniture? The cats can inherit a old
piece just for themselves. They are not dummies, just like a child can be
taught what is wrong. Just be consistent in scolding and sprays. Put them
in another room, example a utility room for misbehaving. I'm sure lots of
folks here can point you to negative websites about declawing. I lived with
one cat for 21 years after declawing. I never felt I told her enough how
sorry I was. And that never again will I do it to another cat.
Cynthia
Herman-Munster
over it.
Thanks all
"Cynthia Nollner" <monkeyj...@netherworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:W54S8.53399$LC3.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Violet Tigress
<cants...@attbi.com> wrote:
> I have 2 cats a 5 year old male and a 2 year old female which I love
> dearly,
> I also have a wife of 18 years who is sick of all the torn up furnature.
> I have tried training sprays,scartching posts, water pistol etc.. all to no
> avail,
> So the wife wants 'em declawed and says everyone she has talked to says
> their cats were fine after the procedure,
******
I would NEVER under any circumstance declaw a cat.
--
Miss Kitty... Cyborg Woman
The one & only Violet Tigress
The infamous Miss Kitty of Amblefolke... Deny! Deny! Deny!
http://home.inreach.com/kismit ICQ 158985943
Reply to kis...@inreach.com
Flippy
Please, PLEASE do not declaw your kitty -- it is a very painful procedure
and is equivalent to us (humans) having the tips of our fingers amputated at
the joints. For information about declawing, please visit this page:
http://www.stopdeclaw.com. Also, see the links on this page:
http://www.onthe.net.au/~flippy/declawing.html
For information on how to stop kitty Biting and Scratching when you play
with him, see the links on this page:
http://www.onthe.net.au/~flippy/catalogue.html#behavaggression
Please let me know how you go, and email me if you'd like more information.
Flippy in Melbourne, Australia.
Email: fli...@onthe.net.au
Catpage: http://www.onthe.net.au/~flippy/
Lyn
Please bear with me...I'm going to give you a *lot* of information...
Here's a really good article from a vet about the
reasons Americans declaw and ethics of same:
"The Controversy
The declawing of cats continues to be a highly charged issue among cat
owners and veterinarians. There are owners who sacrifice their
furniture rather than declaw a cat and owners who declaw all their
cats pre-emptively. There are veterinarians who will refuse to declaw
cats and others who have no qualms about it whatever. Most cat owners
and most veterinarians will declaw cats but with some misgivings. Even
among veterinarians who have no qualms about declawing it remains an
uncomfortable issue because owners frequently ask discomfiting
questions.
What The Procedure Is
It is technically called an onychectomy and constitutes an amputation
of the toe at the last joint. This removes the claw and the bone from
which it originates. On a human hand this would be an amputation at
the knuckle just above the nail.
Common Arguments in Favor
Cats are destructive to furniture, cats attack other cats in the
house, cats attack the owner or children, cats inadvertently snag
their claws on the owner or children. The owner has HIV or is
otherwise immunocompromised.
Common Arguments Against
Recovery from the procedure is painful. Some veterinarians think it is
excruciatingly painful, some characterize it as "uncomfortable".
Surgical complications: Inadvertent removal of part of a digital pad,
incomplete removal of the nail bed and partial regrowth of the nail,
infection, rare anesthetic complications. Also cited are disfigurement
of the feet, lameness for inapparent reasons, long healing time in
older cats, psychological trauma, inability to defend oneself from
other cats, inability to climb outdoors, though some cats can still
climb. Some people feel that it is a surgery of convenience for the
owner on the order of ear cropping and tail docking.
Ethical Considerations
Please note that these considerations are very different from those
generally discussed in relation to declawing. These are the
philosophical arguments underlying the common ones. Even though these
considerations seem abstract most positions that people take with
respect to declawing are based on the following:
Is it permissible to subordinate the welfare of one species to
another? Is it permissible to impose one's will on a member of another
species at all? Is it permissible to impose one's will on a member of
another species "for his/her own good"? If it is permissible to impose
one's will on a member of another species "for his/her own good" how
far is one entitled to go before violating this trust? Who is entitled
to make the decison and on what authority?
No Moral Hierarchy
If one believes that there is no moral hierarchy on earth, we were all
just put here together or we all just evolved here together then there
is no defensible argument justifying cats hamstringing humans to
prevent them from exercising their filthy habits, e.g. killing and
torturing other humans by the millions, polluting the oceans and
atmosphere, filling wrecking yards with dead cars and exploiting
children for financial gain. The reverse argument makes equal sense;
humans have no right to incarcerate and surgically alter cats to
prevent them from exercising their filthy habits. The argument that
cats have an inherent right to protect their planet from destruction
only holds as far as making us stop that destruction but does not
extend to merely offensive activities. This argument does not work
well in reverse because to avoid direct damage by cats all we have to
do is refrain from handling them.
Moral Hierarchy
If, however, one believes that there is a moral hierarchy on earth,
that is some species are more equal than others and are worth more
than others either inherently or in the eyes of a god, then the
argument becomes more complicated. I have not yet heard a convincing
argument which endows humans with moral superiority, and the right to
control and manipulate other species for our own benefit, that does
not invoke God or a god as the grantor of those rights. This argument,
in the western world, usually devolves into a discussion of whether
God or a god exists, whether the bible is in fact the literal word of
God and whether the interpretation of the words written there should
be taken as carte blanche rulership over other species or
"stewardship".
Benign Captivity
Are we entitled to keep cats indoors, breed them, declaw them? If you
believe in biblical carte blanche, no problem. We're better, we're
more important, they're here for us. If you don't or are not so sure
then the question becomes one of where to draw the line, how do you
justify each infringement on their freedom. Keeping a cat indoors?
They live longer, they suffer fewer infectious diseases and, as my
veterinarian friend makes the case, one is protecting native bird
species from them*. Personally I can almost buy the argument. If we
are entitled to do what is necessary "for their own good" and to
protect ourselves that would probably entitle us to feed them,
vaccinate them, spay and castrate them to prevent overpopulation. All
these things are arguabley advantageous to cats as a species.
Obligations
Having decided to keep these animals in the house most people
(excusing those with biblical carte blanche) would agree that they are
obliged to ameliorate the conditions of their captivity by keeping the
litter box clean, feeding them, keeping them free of fleas and other
external and internal parasites. That's easy, but what does one do
about those activities which are perfectly normal but offensive to us;
scratching the furniture, tearing up the carpet, scratching people,
spraying and digging in the plants? The remedies to
these offenses in no way benefit the cat, they only benefit people.
Whether you subscribe to rationale A, B or C -
(A) We can do whatever we want with them because we're entitled.
(B) We're keeping them indoors for their own good.
(C) We're not so sure where we stand ethically but we like cats
indoors.
- the practico-ethical question becomes how far are we going to go to
get what we want, relief from this noxious behavior. My answer is
this: Do the least damaging thing to the cat which will get you what
you want. Since we are discussing the justification for declawing
let's forget the other offenses.
Remedies Ranked
1. Not all cats are destructive. Let them be innocent until proven
guilty; give them scratching posts, scratching pads, cat trees and
show them how to use them.
2. Behavioral modification - successful behavioral modification
constitutes a cure, no more problems. It requires, however,
concentrated vigilance and action. Initial attempts often fail and
require persistence, inventiveness and willingness to try a number of
different techniques.
3. Nail Clipping - Low tech and relatively simple but you have to
do it or get your veterinarian or groomer to do it. Not fool proof.
They can still do some limited damage but sometimes get out of the
habit of scratching because it's not the same without the tips.
4. Soft Paws - This product consists of blunt plastic
sheaths which are "Superglued" onto the nails. They need to be
replaced as they fall off.
5. Tendonotomy - Surgical procedure, not new but currently in
vogue. Prevents extrusion of the claws and scratching. Reputed to be
more humane, less painful than declawing but requires clipping the
nails every two to four months so they don't grow long and catch on
things.
6. Declawing.
The Real Issue
For most people (who consider declawing) the real issue is not whether
it is ethical to declaw a cat, the real issue is whether they are
going to spend the time and energy to seek alternatives. For many
people a cat is an accessory to their lifestyle or a concession to one
of their children. Declawing the cat only costs money, training the
cat requires attention. Frequently the latter is in shorter supply
than the former. This is symptomatic of owning too much and doing too
many things to do justice to any of them.
Being in this trap myself I understand it. Maybe someone with a way
out will write in and help us all.
*One veterinarian I know is violently opposed to allowing cats
outdoors. Cats kill many birds some of which are indigenous species;
domestic cats are not. This veterinarian would certainly agree that
pet cats should be indoors. "
© Copyright 1999, Matthew J. Ehrenberg
***************
From a personal perspective, let me tell you my story. I used to
think declawing was a benign surgery. I wouldn't have chosen it for
my own cats, but had friends who did, and I didn't think much about
it. Then, I began working as a vet tech for a cat specialist who did
declaws routinely (3-6/day). What I observed were post-op cats who
were in excrusiating pain and had to receive pain meds constantly for
two days or more. The wounds bleed profusely. The operation is
basically ten separate amputations - and as one would expect, an
amputation is very painful. As the cats sit in their cages overnight
after the surgery, the pain meds wear off, and the cats shake their
paws to remove their bandages. The blood literally covers (splatters
across) the cages. The wounds (which ARE sutured during the surgery,
by the way) are then examined, the bandages removed, and the cats are
doped up again. Later that day, if the bleeding has stopped, the cats
can go home. The cats who have the most problem adjusting are cats
who are older and are accustomed to walking "normally", on their toes.
Cats are digitrade which means that they use the tips of their toes
as pressure points when moving. Once those toe tips are gone, the
weight shifts to the inner bones and pads, which totally alters the
pressure on the cat's paw, wrist, leg, shoulder and spine. Because of
this, as declawed cats age, they often times have severe arthritis and
other orthopedic problems. I saw many older cats come in with such
problems. In addition, many declawed cats develop behavioral
problems, such as inappropriate elimination, biting, fearful behavior,
etc. I cannot tell you how many clients have told me that declawing
totally changed their cat. Bottom line is, for me, after seeing the
surgery, and seeing the aftermath caused by this procedure, I cannot
ever recommend that ANYONE for ANY REASON ever declaw their cat. A
cat would be more humanely rehomed than declawed, IMO.
A soultion for you may be frequent nail trims and/or Soft Paws. I
have used soft paws on a number of cats, and they work quite well.
Here is my assessment (from an old post):
SoftPaws
Some people were asking about SoftPaws. I work at a vet, and apply
these things every day, to all kinds of cats. Here is my take:
Description: A set of rubber nail covers which are glued to the nail,
after trimming, with a super-glue-like substance. They are used to
keep the kitty from scratching things that may be damaged by unaltered
nails.
****************
Pros:
They are really, really easy to apply if kitty cooperates, and will
let you trim her nails easily. They take about 5-8 minutes to apply,
once you get the hang of it.
They are relatively inexpensive (about $10-12/set, if applied at the
vet, and they last 1-3 months.) They are even less expensive if you
buy your own kit and apply them at home.
They do not interfere with normal claw usage, but protect things you
do not want scratched, fairly effectively.
Some cats do very, very well with them.
****************
Cons:
Some cats *detest* them, and will fight you tooth and nail (excuse the
pun) when you try to apply them.
Some cats pull them off easily.
The glue is very sticky, and will stick to and damage any surface it
encounters (including human skin).
If the glue touches any skin while wet, it burns. It is fairly
caustic.
Some cats are allergic to the glue.
If the nail is trimmed too short, the glue can damage the nail bed,
which results in a crusty/ill formed nail, when the nail grows out.
They work best of the nail is trimmed fairly short, and if the glue is
applied in the inner 2/3 of the cap, before application.
The caps need to be fitted properly. Many technicians tend to use
caps that are too large, and then the cat is constantly fighting with
the caps, as they "feel" awkward. One cat may need more than one size
of caps to accomodate all nails on the foot (e.g. mediums on all nails
except 'pinky", which needs a small).
The caps need to be applied quickly after the glue is applied...the
glue dries very quickly. Thjis can be tricky for beginners.
****************
Overall impression: I think trimming nails often (every 1-2 weeks) is
a better, more wholistic solution to scratching problems, than
Softpaws. If you are unable to do this, SoftPaws may be a solution
for you. Overall, it is a good product, but may not be good for every
cat.
****************
So, my final advice to you is this: Please DO NOT declaw your cats.
It is simply much too risky. Yes, many cats who are declawed do fine,
and live full lives without major complications. However, the lives
of other cats have been COMPLETELY ruined by this surgery. If you
really have the best interest of your cats in mind, don't declaw them.
Good luck,
L.
Patch
> I agree, told the wife there'd be no surgery....Oh well she'll have to get
> over it.
>
> Thanks all
Good man :-)))
Do make sure to look at the tips link that Flippy posted to help get them
scratching in the right places.
Above all, when they do it in the right place, make them feel like all their
christmases have come at once so they`ll want to keep getting it right :-)
Patch
JerryMouse
A piece of furniture vs. a member of the family? Is there really an issue
here?
MsJuniper
keep a cat (which might otherwise be put down) some people need to protect
their possessions from claws.
(possessions: aka, furniture or flesh)
I should warn you: some cats never recover. Their personalities change
irrevocably. They become paranoid, or mistrusting or just frightened by
things. Wouldn't you if you experienced some kind of Stephen King 'Misery'
event? "I love you, let me whack your paws".
Trust me, sometimes you have no choice, but it isn't without risks the vet
doesn't tell you about.
MsJuniper
They aren't done anymore in many places in Canada. While this surgery was
popular in the 80s, it was discovered that regardless of their age, many of
these poor beasts became highly arthritic within 2 years.
-----------------
Sherry
>irrevocably. They become paranoid, or mistrusting or just frightened by
>things. Wouldn't you if you experienced some kind of Stephen King 'Misery'
>event? "I love you, let me whack your paws".
Good analagy.
>
>Trust me, sometimes you have no choice, but it isn't without risks the vet
>doesn't tell you about.
I disagree. There is no choice. Cats come with claws. I just don't buy the
notion that declaw is ever "necessary" to save a life. I think it's just a
cop-out the vets have manufactured to alleviate guilt on the part of the owner.
A paranoid, mistrusting, fearful cat who is also possibly in pain doesn't have
any kind of quality of life anyway.
Sherry
MsJuniper
someone to feel a certain way, but you can't make them.
for example: I had a girlfriend who lived with a guy. They got a cat.
They broke up. She got a new apartment. She was broke, with a cat. As she
was saving cash, she got a roommate. The roommate bought a leather sofa.
Then the roommate freaked out about the cat who MIGHT scratch the sofa. Now
war could break out, they could decide to go their separate ways or get rid
of the cat. ... I couldn't tell her what to do... I could only tell her the
facts as I saw them & let her decide.
My girlfriend decided to declaw the cat. Not MY choice, but it was hers.
She still has a happy cat. joy to both of them. But she could have also
had the cat put down... She doesn't believe in handing off animals to other
people. Her belief system, not necessarily mine. The cat is 10 years old
now, they're happily installed in a lovely home by themselves... which she
couldn't have afforded if she hadn't split her rent for 3 years, 6 years
ago.
House or cat? hummmmm Sometimes the human wins - they live longer.
"Sherry " <srid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020626110634...@mb-ml.aol.com...
Skits O'Phrennia
> I agree, told the wife there'd be no surgery....Oh well she'll have to get
What about those plastic tips I've seen? Any opinions about those?
Skits
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
han...@netins.net
Why can't people finally understand that simple equation: FUR + CLAWS = CAT
period! If a person isn't willing to accept that fact - don't get a cat.
Pretty simple.
Kathy K.=^..^=
Patch
"MsJuniper" <msju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tWkS8.3358$ZM3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> sometimes, you can't tell people where their priorities are. You can WANT
> someone to feel a certain way, but you can't make them.
>
> for example: I had a girlfriend who lived with a guy. They got a cat.
> They broke up. She got a new apartment. She was broke, with a cat. As
she
> was saving cash, she got a roommate. The roommate bought a leather sofa.
> Then the roommate freaked out about the cat who MIGHT scratch the sofa.
Now
> war could break out, they could decide to go their separate ways or get
rid
> of the cat. ... I couldn't tell her what to do... I could only tell her
the
> facts as I saw them & let her decide.
>
> My girlfriend decided to declaw the cat. Not MY choice, but it was hers.
> She still has a happy cat. joy to both of them. But she could have also
> had the cat put down... She doesn't believe in handing off animals to
other
> people. Her belief system, not necessarily mine. The cat is 10 years old
> now, they're happily installed in a lovely home by themselves... which she
> couldn't have afforded if she hadn't split her rent for 3 years, 6 years
> ago.
I`m sorry but I just dont buy that. She could have just offered to replace
the sofa if the cat damaged it. Declaw is not available in UK [rightly so]
so we find suitable alternatives, not easy options.
No, IMO she took the "easy" option [for her, not the poor cat] and her room
mate was a b**tard.
If I were in her position and offer of a replacement sofa was not accepted,
I love my cats enough to let them live with someone else rather than
mutilate them, no matter how much it would hurt my heart.
Patch
Patch
"Patch" <d.guipag...@LOLntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pNmS8.1524$cA.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
I just re-red and saw that is was her appartment. Well thats even worse. She
could easily have got a new room-mate who didnt have the bloody nreve to
tell her how to treat her cat in her own flippin` home.
Patch
Sherry
>the sofa if the cat damaged it. Declaw is not available in UK [rightly so]
>so we find suitable alternatives, not easy options.
>No, IMO she took the "easy" option [for her, not the poor cat] and her room
>mate was a b**tard.
>If I were in her position and offer of a replacement sofa was not accepted,
>I love my cats enough to let them live with someone else rather than
>mutilate them, no matter how much it would hurt my heart.
>
>Patch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I`m sorry but I just dont buy that. She could have just offered to replace
>the sofa if the cat damaged it. Declaw is not available in UK [rightly so]
>so we find suitable alternatives, not easy options.
>No, IMO she took the "easy" option [for her, not the poor cat] and her room
>mate was a b**tard.
>If I were in her position and offer of a replacement sofa was not accepted,
>I love my cats enough to let them live with someone else rather than
>mutilate them, no matter how much it would hurt my heart.
>
>Patch
Amen. If I had a choice between declawing all my cats and giving them up to a
home where they could keep their claws, I'd do it. Declawing is the easy way
out...the "instant solution." If declaw were suddenly illegal here, you can be
there'd be people suddenly discovering that cats really can be successfully
discouraged from scratching furniture. Some don't scratch at all, and that's
what pisses me off the most. People who declaw *kittens* for God's sakes,
before they even have a chance to prove they *won't* damage furniture.
Sherry
Lyn
> someone to feel a certain way, but you can't make them.
>
> for example: I had a girlfriend who lived with a guy. They got a cat.
> They broke up. She got a new apartment. She was broke, with a cat. As she
> was saving cash, she got a roommate. The roommate bought a leather sofa.
> Then the roommate freaked out about the cat who MIGHT scratch the sofa. Now
> war could break out, they could decide to go their separate ways or get rid
> of the cat. ... I couldn't tell her what to do... I could only tell her the
> facts as I saw them & let her decide.
>
> My girlfriend decided to declaw the cat. Not MY choice, but it was hers.
> She still has a happy cat. joy to both of them. But she could have also
> had the cat put down...
So a dead cat is better than a rehomed cat? Sorry, wrong.
If you don't stand up for your morals, especially to friends and
relatives, why do you have any?
She could have trimmed the cat's nails, used SoftPaws, moved, gotten a
new roommate...the scenarios are endless. To mutilate a cat for some
disposable item (furniture) is unconscionable. The choice is never
restricted to "declaw or kill the cat". There are hundreds of ways to
get around clawing "problems". However, it seems, the choice is
always "declaw because I am too freaking lazy to find a way to work
out the clawing "problem". Always.
-L.
Lyn
People who cannot live with the claws shouldn't have cats. It really
is that simple.
-L.
Lyn
>Some don't scratch at all, and that's
> what pisses me off the most.
My pet peeve. One of them, at least...
>People who declaw *kittens* for God's sakes,
> before they even have a chance to prove they *won't* damage furniture.
I meant to add that we called this practice "Cutting Off His Toes
Despite His Face" - when they did it to the babies....They were so
cute - I cannot imagine how anyone could inflict that surgery on them.
-L.
Patch
"Lyn" <pri...@user.kingsnake.com> wrote in message
news:c68165b1.02062...@posting.google.com...
Exactly.
I`ve said this before and I`ll say it again. In UK, there is no declaw
"option".
The UK is not full of shredded up homes.
The UK is, however, full of homes with scratching posts and toys for cats
which are accepted the way they were born - *with* claws.
Most people here plan their furnishings to suit their cat, not mutilate
their cat to suit the furnishings.
Patch
Schroedinger's Cat
> someone to feel a certain way, but you can't make them.
>
> for example: I had a girlfriend who lived with a guy. They got a cat.
> They broke up. She got a new apartment. She was broke, with a cat. As
she
> was saving cash, she got a roommate. The roommate bought a leather sofa.
> Then the roommate freaked out about the cat who MIGHT scratch the sofa.
Now
> war could break out, they could decide to go their separate ways or get
rid
> of the cat. ... I couldn't tell her what to do... I could only tell her
the
> facts as I saw them & let her decide.
>
> My girlfriend decided to declaw the cat. Not MY choice, but it was hers.
> She still has a happy cat. joy to both of them. But she could have also
> had the cat put down... She doesn't believe in handing off animals to
other
> people. Her belief system, not necessarily mine. The cat is 10 years old
> now, they're happily installed in a lovely home by themselves... which she
> couldn't have afforded if she hadn't split her rent for 3 years, 6 years
> ago.
>
> House or cat? hummmmm Sometimes the human wins - they live longer.
This says so much about the girlfriend that it makes me want to vomit. I
think the term "scum" is looked for here. If the roommate knew she had a
cat when he moved in, he had no right to freak out about "might-have-beens"
and no right to impose a scumbag controlling personality on to anybody else.
The roommate should have been dismembered, not the cat. And, by the way,
humans may live longer, but so what? She ain't living with this precious
roommate now is she?
Cat
MsJuniper
I'm pointing out that some people have different priorities in life & I
don't believe that you can tell people how or what to believe in. We may not
agree with a series of values... ( but calling my bestfriend 'scumbag' or
worse certainly wins the way to no one's heart - certainly not in my value
system)
My belief system indicates that all you can do is give people information to
make their choices or change laws to eliminate the choice. You can only
help by applying facts to the issue... but they eventually make the decision
based on their needs & values.
Her value system & personal circumstances gave her a choice between delaying
owning a home for many years or having a cat declawed. Honestly, on the
scale of HER belief system, she made the best choice she could. Not a
belief system everyone agrees on, but hers.
If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with other examples from
your friends' lives where they did something you didn't believe in... it
doesn't make them less of a person or less of a friend.
MsJuniper
poster's personal & family values circumstances have to be taken into
consideration.
Cruelty & laziness are NOT always the reason someone does something you
don't believe in: often, people have alternate belief systems & an internal
viewpoint on their own lives.
The point is that anyone can blow off their horn in someone's face about
higher values: what it amounts to is usually nothing. In fact, the louder
one yells, the less people listen. Pursuasion & education is the key.
Again, you can only:
1 supply the *facts*
2 alternate suggestions
3 let people know how strongly you feel about something.
(Ask any minister, social worker or psychiatrist... that IS all you can do,
short of changing a law to be enforced.)
So I ask you, after you've done that... where do you go? Its a slippery
slope where if you say the END result of someone else's actions is the
measurement of *your* value system... then you're ALSO saying that the end
justifies the means...
...& we all know where that can go...
-----------------
Schroedinger's Cat
> my my people, you're not listening:
>
> I'm pointing out that some people have different priorities in life & I
> don't believe that you can tell people how or what to believe in. We may
not
> agree with a series of values... ( but calling my bestfriend 'scumbag' or
> worse certainly wins the way to no one's heart - certainly not in my value
> system)
>
> My belief system indicates that all you can do is give people information
to
> make their choices or change laws to eliminate the choice. You can only
> help by applying facts to the issue... but they eventually make the
decision
> based on their needs & values.
That's fine - if it doesn't involve harming another living creature, and
ruining its life.
> Her value system & personal circumstances gave her a choice between
delaying
> owning a home for many years or having a cat declawed. Honestly, on the
> scale of HER belief system, she made the best choice she could. Not a
> belief system everyone agrees on, but hers.
>
> If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with other examples from
> your friends' lives where they did something you didn't believe in... it
> doesn't make them less of a person or less of a friend.
Actually, it has made them less of a person, if it involved harming another
living creature and permanently ruining its life. You are advocating pure
selfishness. Sure, ranting may not change other people's minds, but like
the say, evil is perpetrated if the good stand by and do nothing to stand up
for those who cannot speak for themselves. Of course I could care less if
my best friend bought, I dunno, a skateboard to ride to work on. But that
choice involves that person and that person alone (unless they run over a
whole lot of pensioners!). The only way your point of view makes sense is
if you believe that animals' rights, or animals themselves, are in some way
inferior to humans', or that animals, because they have shorter lives, don't
feel pain or emotions or something. By your logic, if humans live longer,
this paragon of virtue you know could have waited a year or two longer for
their own home. But I guess money is obviously their motivating factor...
Cat
MsJuniper
who would be quite clear about being uniform in the way they fulfill their
values. I'm not slamming you for your personal beliefs, whatever they are.
I was pointing out you have a RIGHT to them. I can't tell you how to live
your life.
& no, I didn't say that because someone lives shorter that they don't have
feelings. I'm saying that I can UNDERSTAND that someone must take care of
their longterm personal care. If a woman lives to 85, it doesn't help her
pay her grocery or care bills to have overlooked her personal finances when
she was in her early post-university career.
one fulfills their belief system in the best way they can, sometimes one
isn't the person they want to be, but feel driven to their decisions. One
can be required to act & be unhappy with the circumstances that drive you to
a decision you don't like... I'm sure you've experienced something of the
same @ some point.
By the way, I understand that my girlfriend is a huge contributor & activist
towards 'Homes For Humanity'. Puts her in a different light when you think
of all the hundreds of lives she's changed... by providing a home & longterm
financial stability for entire families...
Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:31:22 +0930]
:> If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with other examples from
:> your friends' lives where they did something you didn't believe in... it
:> doesn't make them less of a person or less of a friend.
:
:Actually, it has made them less of a person, if it involved harming another
:living creature and permanently ruining its life.
I'm sorry, but this is myopic. There *are* declawed cats leading
perfectly happy lives. Granted, I wouldn't do it (again), but it's not
the universal instrument of doom and misery that some here would like to
brainwash others into believing.
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan at slick-family dot net
"To those who preserve it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never
know."
Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:29:43 -0400]
:you're a vegan or buddist ?
*cackle*
PERFECT response!!!!!!
Natalie
<cants...@attbi.com> wrote:
>I agree, told the wife there'd be no surgery....Oh well she'll have to get
>over it.
>
>Thanks all
>
Hurray......seriously, cats *are* trainable. A little work and
there'll be nothing for your wife to get over.
Thank you for not declawing.
Natalie
Natalie
<msju...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>my my people, you're not listening:
>
>I'm pointing out that some people have different priorities in life & I
>don't believe that you can tell people how or what to believe in. We may not
>agree with a series of values... ( but calling my bestfriend 'scumbag' or
>worse certainly wins the way to no one's heart - certainly not in my value
>system)
>
>My belief system indicates that all you can do is give people information to
>make their choices or change laws to eliminate the choice. You can only
>help by applying facts to the issue... but they eventually make the decision
>based on their needs & values.
>
>Her value system & personal circumstances gave her a choice between delaying
>owning a home for many years or having a cat declawed. Honestly, on the
>scale of HER belief system, she made the best choice she could. Not a
>belief system everyone agrees on, but hers.
OR she could have done the unselfish thing and rehomed the cat with
someone who wasn't going to mutilate it. There's always another
option; it sounds like your friend only considered the options that
didn't cause *her* any suffering.
Natalie
Patch
>
> I'm pointing out that some people have different priorities in life & I
> don't believe that you can tell people how or what to believe in. We may
not
> agree with a series of values... ( but calling my bestfriend 'scumbag' or
> worse certainly wins the way to no one's heart - certainly not in my value
> system)
>
> My belief system indicates that all you can do is give people information
to
> make their choices or change laws to eliminate the choice. You can only
> help by applying facts to the issue... but they eventually make the
decision
> based on their needs & values.
>
> Her value system & personal circumstances gave her a choice between
delaying
> owning a home for many years or having a cat declawed. Honestly, on the
> scale of HER belief system, she made the best choice she could. Not a
> belief system everyone agrees on, but hers.
Hopefully our responses are giving alternatives to others in the same
position - the alternatives that your friend did not think [or bother ?] to
consider.
>
> If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with other examples from
> your friends' lives where they did something you didn't believe in... it
> doesn't make them less of a person or less of a friend.
>
Any friend of mine deliberately doing something wicked to an animal
instantly ceases to be my friend, no ifs or buts about it.
Patch
Patch
<snip>
> By the way, I understand that my girlfriend is a huge contributor &
activist
> towards 'Homes For Humanity'. Puts her in a different light when you
think
> of all the hundreds of lives she's changed... by providing a home &
longterm
> financial stability for entire families...
Doesnt put her in a "different light" in my book <shrug>.
Patch
MsJuniper
I persist in believing that there are people who hold the general welfare of
humans over animals. And they're not evil for doing so.
if someone persists in believing that anyone who doesn't share our values is
evil... I've got a cult to enroll them in. Heaven forbid we get along &
recognize each other's values are unique & important to them.
we're not about to change each others values - for the same reasons I give
on this issue - so I abdicate from this conversation, because it isn't
one...
Bob Brenchley.
<br...@slick-family.not> wrote:
>[Schroedinger's Cat]
>[Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:31:22 +0930]
>
>:> If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with other examples from
>:> your friends' lives where they did something you didn't believe in... it
>:> doesn't make them less of a person or less of a friend.
>:
>:Actually, it has made them less of a person, if it involved harming another
>:living creature and permanently ruining its life.
>
>I'm sorry, but this is myopic. There *are* declawed cats leading
>perfectly happy lives.
Liar!
> Granted, I wouldn't do it (again), but it's not
A yellowed bellied coward like you is not believable.
>the universal instrument of doom and misery that some here would like to
>brainwash others into believing.
Liar!
SICK SLICK - Cowardly Animal Abuser.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:47:20 +0100]
:On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:49:31 -0400, Bryan S. Slick
:<br...@slick-family.not> wrote:
:
:>[Schroedinger's Cat]
:>[Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:31:22 +0930]
:>
:>:> If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with other examples from
:>:> your friends' lives where they did something you didn't believe in... it
:>:> doesn't make them less of a person or less of a friend.
:>:
:>:Actually, it has made them less of a person, if it involved harming another
:>:living creature and permanently ruining its life.
:>
:>I'm sorry, but this is myopic. There *are* declawed cats leading
:>perfectly happy lives.
:
:Liar!
:
:> Granted, I wouldn't do it (again), but it's not
:
:A yellowed bellied coward like you is not believable.
Thanks for the glowing endorsement, Bob! You are an inspiration to us
all! *smooch* I looooooooove you!
Susan Ravan
would have probably ended up in a shelter before a home would be found.
Shelters put down animals every day. As much as I dislike declawing, I
understand why some people do it when the option is declaw or out the
door. It is very easy to sit in judgment on others. Plus, most vets
don't tell the owners what the procedure entails, just as *no* vet I
have ever seen/used tells owners about the problems with cats and
vaccinations.
Susan Ravan
Susan Ravan
Susan Ravan
Sherry
>Susan Ravan
It's not self-righteousness at all. It's sticking to your convictions 100% when
you know they're right. It's also speaking for those who cannot speak for
themselves.
Sherry
Patch
"Susan Ravan" <sra...@ellijay.com> wrote in message
news:3D1BA43B...@ellijay.com...
> Let's hope self righteousness isn't contagious.
> Susan Ravan
I had a friend who wanted a cat.
She got a cat.
I went round and found her kicking the cat and throwing things at him. I
quietly picked up the cat, issued a "polite suggestion" that she cross to
the other side of the road if she saw me again and left.
I thought I was rather self restrained.
She actually deserved to get herself what she was doing to the poor cat but
I resisted the urge to do so.
Do you think I could have been friends with her after she blatantly
physically abused him in front of me ?
Would you be friends with some one who did the same thing in front of you ?
Perhaps you think it would have been better to turn away and leave her to
kick him to death rather than fall out with her for being an animal abusing
coward.......?
Patch
Natalie
wrote:
>In a perfect world, rehoming would work. However unfortunate, the cat
>would have probably ended up in a shelter before a home would be found.
Depends how hard the owner tries to find a home among family, friends,
neighbours etc....who said anything about shelters at all?
>Shelters put down animals every day. As much as I dislike declawing, I
>understand why some people do it when the option is declaw or out the
>door.
You're missing my point; those aren't the only options, and as far as
I'm concerned declaw is not an option at all. The options presented
above are the *easy, convenient* options.
> It is very easy to sit in judgment on others. Plus, most vets
>don't tell the owners what the procedure entails, just as *no* vet I
>have ever seen/used tells owners about the problems with cats and
>vaccinations.
When pets are involved, yes it's easy to sit in judgement. It's called
'animal cruelty legislation'. Besides, you say that like it's a bad
thing....if people didn't sit in judgement of others there'd be
anarchy.
Natalie
Lyn
> In a perfect world, rehoming would work.
Actually, in an imperfect world, it works pretty well, every day, in
thousands of places everywhere.
>However unfortunate, the cat
> would have probably ended up in a shelter before a home would be found.
Only if the owner gave up on the animal. And in that case, the animal
is probably better off in a shelter than with a person who would
abandon it merely for scratching "problems". Remember, most
scratching "problems" can be resolved with frequent nail trims - a
minute job every other week or so. It doesn't take a lot of effort to
solve the "problem".
And, if an owner exhibits such a lack of committment to a cat as to
consider abandoning it for "scratching", what happens down the road,
after it is declawed, when the cat urinates inappropriately, or begins
biting/being aggressive (as many declawed cats do)? Is the owner any
more committed now that the cat is maimed? No. The owner will still
abandon the cat. "Declaw or kill" is merely emotional blackmail
people pull on their spouses/vets/etc. so that they get their own,
selfish way.
> Shelters put down animals every day. As much as I dislike declawing, I
> understand why some people do it when the option is declaw or out the
> door.
Declawing and getting rid of the cat are not the only options. It is
the lazy, self-serving, and incredibly drastic way out of a situation
that is not really serious.
>It is very easy to sit in judgment on others.
Especially when they declaw their cats - which is *only* done for
their own convenience. People like that are very easy to come down
on. And more people should do so, so that such barbaric practices are
banned worldwide.
> Plus, most vets
> don't tell the owners what the procedure entails,
It's the owner's responsibility to be educated. Vets won't tell the
details because they would lose money if they were truthful.
>just as *no* vet I
> have ever seen/used tells owners about the problems with cats and
> vaccinations.
Some do, but they are few and far between.
-L.
Lyn
No kidding. Maiming the cat is ok because she helps the homeless?
Sorry, but there is nothing that can negate being so selfish and
species-ist.
-L.
Lyn
> [Schroedinger's Cat]
> [Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:31:22 +0930]
>
> :> If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with other examples from
> :> your friends' lives where they did something you didn't believe in... it
> :> doesn't make them less of a person or less of a friend.
> :
> :Actually, it has made them less of a person, if it involved harming another
> :living creature and permanently ruining its life.
>
> I'm sorry, but this is myopic. There *are* declawed cats leading
> perfectly happy lives.
Happy, yes. Perfect, no. A cat cannot be perfect without its toes
intact.
I have never denied that some cats do seemingly well being declawed
(see my initial response to this thread). That is a given. But many
do not, and that is why we are against the practice. I, personally,
have seen a large number of cats suffer from the practice. There is
absolutely no way to determine the outcome or aftermath of the
surgery. And because so many cats suffer so terribly from it, we are
acting to ban the practice. If the same were true for S/N surgery, or
another elective surgery, we would be against that, as well.
Published research documents a large number of cats suffer from the
practice. Therefore, in good conscience, no one would advocate it.
> Granted, I wouldn't do it (again),
Why not? What was the outcome with your cat(s)?
> but it's not
> the universal instrument of doom and misery
No one ever said that it affects all cats negatively. Except in the
general sense that they are no longer in their "natural state", which
is obvious.
>that some here would like to
> brainwash others into believing.
Nobody is brainwashing anyone. All of us stated (as far as I can
read) our own experiences and why we are or are not against the
practice. It is up to the OP to decide for himslef. Evidently he
seems to have made the "right" choice, in my book.
-L.
Lyn
> Let's hope self righteousness isn't contagious.
> Susan Ravan
>
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in time
of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality."
--Dante.
-L.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>In a perfect world, rehoming would work.
Nothing is perfect, but the UK gets as close to it as it is possible
to get.
>However unfortunate, the cat
>would have probably ended up in a shelter before a home would be found.
>Shelters put down animals every day.
Sadly that is true in the USA - a very sad reflection on your society.
Don't you think you should start to do something about it?
> As much as I dislike declawing, I
>understand why some people do it when the option is declaw or out the
>door.
Frankly, in most situations, I think the cat would be better of with
its claws and out the door. Better than a life of pain and deprivation
any day.
> It is very easy to sit in judgment on others. Plus, most vets
>don't tell the owners what the procedure entails, just as *no* vet I
>have ever seen/used tells owners about the problems with cats and
>vaccinations.
Then you have some VERY poor vets in your area.
Outside the USA/Canada vets have scruples and only remove a claw for a
valid medical reason. The never has been a valid medical reason to
remove all the claws on a cat.
In my country vets do inform owners of the risk/benefit balance on
vaccinations. One reason many cats are not vaccinated for certain
things which are not a major risk in their area.
>Susan Ravan
Learn that there is NEVER a reason for elective declawing. Learn that
it is possible to run a shelter system where all but a very tiny
number of cats are found loving indoor/outdoor homes. Learn how badly
the USA stands in international terms on cat care and welfare.
Then come back.
--
Bob.
You Have The Right To Remain Silent, So Please Shut Up.
Lyn
> you know what?:
>
> I persist in believing that there are people who hold the general welfare of
> humans over animals.
There is a big difference between amputating an animals toes and
finding a new roomate. "General welfare" has nothing to do with it.
Now, if her choice was to starve to death or eat the cat, I would
agree with you. But that wsn't her moral dilemma, now, was it?
>And they're not evil for doing so.
Sometimes they are, if they deliberately inflict harm to the animal.
>
> if someone persists in believing that anyone who doesn't share our values is
> evil...
Some are, some are not. The Bush Baby is evil. Mother Theresa was
not. Neither one of them share all of my "values".
> I've got a cult to enroll them in. Heaven forbid we get along &
> recognize each other's values are unique & important to them.
Values and morals are subjective. Why do you think laws are enacted?
If one cannot stand up for his own beliefs, why have any beliefs, at
all? Sorry, but I won't stand back and say it is ok for someone to
hurt (or in this case, maim) their animal. Nothing justifies that.
Period. You may think that is ok. I don't. And I will never think
that people like you who think it *is* ok, are "ok" themselves.
>
> we're not about to change each others values -
Nobody is trying to change your vales. We only want to disable anyone
from hurting animals in a similar manner. If we do that through
persuasion, good. If we do it through law, better.
>for the same reasons I give
> on this issue - so I abdicate from this conversation, because it isn't
> one...
You only think so because you don't agree with our viewpoint. You
cannot change us any more than we can change you. The difference is,
we are not trying to change you - and evidently, you WERE trying to
change us. We are merely standing up for our beliefs. You don't like
it, don't post in the ng.
-L.
Schroedinger's Cat
probably long and boring too.
########################################################
MsJuniper wrote:
> my my people, you're not listening:
>
I think we may be listening but not agreeing.
There are two separate issues here: whether we can say that what your
friend did was wrong and whether shouting at someone is the best way to get
them to change their mind.
For the first, this is pretty open and shut. It's an ethically dubious
operation: it causes life-long disability. Your friend knew that. It was
done for short term financial gain, like you said. It was done to an animal
who was basically living under her protection, who we presume trusted her,
and was betrayed. And it was un-necessary: was there only one choice of
room-mate in the entire city? Who was there first? Couldn't the room-mate
have bought a different kind of sofa? Couldn't the cat have been boarded
somewhere else temporarily?
These are pretty unpleasant and upsetting facts, but I reckon they're facts.
And I'm not saying I have the right to judge because I am morally superior
to your friend, I doubt that very much, but if you post stories like this on
a newsgroup like this, you aren't going to get a lot of people saying
"whatever, it's a free country". And I suspect that if you care about cats,
you will share at least some of my feelings on this.
The second one, I don't reckon shouting at someone makes them change their
mind. But I don't know that feeling sad and saying "well, it's her belief
system" changes people's minds either.
But if we truly accept what you seem to be hinting at, maybe we shouldn't
try to change anyone's mind. I may have you wrong, but you seem to be
suggesting the idea that everyone's belief system is equally valid and
praiseworthy, and that everyone's acts should only be considered in the
light of what they believe, rather than the effects of those beliefs on
others. This doesn't stand up. If it's true, then nothing is good, nothing
is bad, everything is fine, and there really is no difference between Saint
Francis and Hitler except we don't happen to agree with Hitler. No-one
believes that.
> I'm pointing out that some people have different priorities in life & I
> don't believe that you can tell people how or what to believe in.
See, this is completely wrong. I know of a man (let's call him Bradley*)
who injected someone else's kitten with kerosene. I feel fairly strongly,
and I am as convinced as I can be, that this was the wrong thing to do. I
think most people would agree. I feel that the kind of person who would do
this kind of thing is what people mean when they use the word "scumbag". If
any further proof were necessary, later events bore me out and last I heard
he was in prison.
If I had met him, I would have felt perfectly happy telling him how to
behave. I would even have felt happy telling him what to believe in. I
probably would have suggested something sincere and repentant in case there
was a judgement day, given that I was going to help him find out in about
five minutes.
We may not
> agree with a series of values... ( but calling my bestfriend 'scumbag' or
> worse certainly wins the way to no one's heart - certainly not in my value
> system)
It's not a question of "agreeing with somone's set of values", it's at least
partly a question of whether they are wrong or not. There are some things
that are purely personal choice: vanilla is better than chocolate. People
who disagree with that statement are just as right as I am. There are
others that are pretty close to objectively true: a parachute will save
your life more often than a duck sandwich if you are falling from an
aeroplane. People who disagree are wrong. Morals are somewhere in between.
Where would you put someone who disagrees about needlessly mutilating an
animal?
> My belief system indicates that all you can do is give people information
to
> make their choices or change laws to eliminate the choice.
Well, you could have given her the information that you thought, and many
vets thought, and animal welfare people thought, declawing was bad. But you
probably found out about it afterwards, and there were personal friend
things involved, which I know can make things unpleasant. But if she's your
friend, you should be able to tell her how you feel. And I'm sure she does
many other praiseworthy things, and has many sterling qualities, but that
doesn't make something cruel into something kind.
Anyway, if forcing your views on others is wrong then passing laws to force
your views on others is just as wrong. And I don't believe that, and I bet
neither do you. If my next door neighbour has a belief system that involves
him driving on the wrong side of the road, I don't want him to have the
freedom to express his views in a personally meaningful and rewarding
fashion. I want him arrested before he leaves his driveway.
You can only
> help by applying facts to the issue... but they eventually make the
decision
> based on their needs & values.
See, I believe that the fact that it's 'their decision" doesn't imbue it
with any kind of moral immunity. I suspect if you were getting your toes
cut off, you'd feel the same.
> Her value system & personal circumstances gave her a choice between
delaying
> owning a home for many years or having a cat declawed. Honestly, on the
> scale of HER belief system, she made the best choice she could. Not a
> belief system everyone agrees on, but hers.
This is pleasant sounding but ultimately very troubling. Sincerity is nice
in relationships and personal matters, but it doesn't stop you making
horrible mistakes. It may be that Bradley's belief system gave him a choice
only between sitting at home bored in front of "the Dukes of Hazzard" or
injecting his brother's cat with kerosene. On the scale of his belief
system, maybe he sincerely he made the best choice he could do with a
tedious afternoon. Not a belief system everyone agrees with... because it's
evil and cruel and wrong. If there is such a thing as good and evil then
what he did was evil.
And I don't know about the whole judging people not just actions thing, but
I reckon calling someone a scumbag if they did what Bradley did, for
example, is pretty common. It's true that, who knows, he may have been
under the influence of an alien mind control ray, and is really a nice
person, but I doubt it. What he did made sense to him at the time, but that
doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.
> If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with other examples from
> your friends' lives where they did something you didn't believe in... it
> doesn't make them less of a person or less of a friend.
I don't usually use terms like "less of a person", but I do wrong things all
the time and my friends tell me. I reckon what your friend did was wrong.
At the worst, and in isolation, it suggests she was cruel to a defenceless
animal for money and convenience. Friends aren't perfect. Maybe if she saw
it from your point of view she wouldn't do it again if the situation
represented itself.
BDC
*because that was his name. Bradley Harper, a very distant aquaintance, and
I found out after the event. Last seen in south west Western Australia in
the early eighties. Reward offered, per body part.
Schroedinger's Cat
"Bryan S. Slick" <br...@slick-family.not> wrote in message
> [MsJuniper]
> [Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:29:43 -0400]
>
> :you're a vegan or buddist ?
>
> *cackle*
>
> PERFECT response!!!!!!
>
> --
> Bryan S. Slick, bryan at slick-family dot net
This says pretty much what I suspected about you, too. I assume you are
saying and supporting here the idea that if a person eats the flesh of
creatures which have lived lives free of cripplement and pain, and then were
terminated humanely, that this then excuses dismembering and permanently
crippling other animals which rely on their human to protect them from harm?
Can you please explain if this is what you mean? Because although I
personally think killing animals for food is bad (but less bad if animals
are kept and killed in cruelty-free conditions) and yes, I am not perfect, I
still don't think it follows that it is OK to cripple cats. If you do,
that's your right, but for god/whoever's sake don't come to Australia. I
have a lot of colleagues and friends who know about my extra-special tetanus
shot...
Cat
Schroedinger's Cat
> Susan Ravan
Well, we know you must have caught something far nastier... but wait a
minute, aren't you being self-righteous about NOT being self-righteous? And
by the way, wouldn't you say the so-called self-righteous are the types who
think their stance makes them "superior"? I don't think Patch feels
"superior" for standing up for the rights of animals. I think that she does
it because it would cause her PAIN not to, because for her to ignore cruelty
would be so horribly wrong. It's called a conscience, and being aware that
we share the world with creatures who are mostly far more beautiful and
loving and rewarding than our own species, and who are at the mercy of our
species. They can't speak for themselves...
Cat
Schroedinger's Cat
"Lyn" <pri...@user.kingsnake.com> wrote in message
news:c68165b1.02062...@posting.google.com...
> Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com> wrote in message
news:<3D1BA38A...@ellijay.com>...
> > In a perfect world, rehoming would work.
>
> Actually, in an imperfect world, it works pretty well, every day, in
> thousands of places everywhere.
>
> >However unfortunate, the cat
> > would have probably ended up in a shelter before a home would be found.
>
> Only if the owner gave up on the animal. And in that case, the animal
> is probably better off in a shelter than with a person who would
> abandon it merely for scratching "problems". Remember, most
> scratching "problems" can be resolved with frequent nail trims - a
> minute job every other week or so. It doesn't take a lot of effort to
> solve the "problem".
And the other point in the "Juniper" scenario is that the person moved in,
KNOWING that there was a cat in the house, then deliberately went out and
bought a leather sofa and then chucked some kind of spack attack about
"scratching" before the cat had even laid eyes on the treasured object.
He/she/it didn't even see if training would work first.
Cat
(FWIW, we have 7 indoor cats and not one has scratched our leather lounge,
leather lounge chairs or footstool, or either of the 2 vinyl sofas, and we
have not actually trained them not to do this.)
Cheryl
news:3d1cfe8c$0$21003$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Warning: the following contains descriptions of animal cruelty. And it's
> probably long and boring too.
>
> ########################################################
<snip, read the archives if you want to see the post in its entirety, msg-id
is up there>
> But if we truly accept what you seem to be hinting at, maybe we shouldn't
> try to change anyone's mind. I may have you wrong, but you seem to be
> suggesting the idea that everyone's belief system is equally valid and
> praiseworthy, and that everyone's acts should only be considered in the
> light of what they believe, rather than the effects of those beliefs on
> others. This doesn't stand up. If it's true, then nothing is good,
nothing
> is bad, everything is fine, and there really is no difference between
Saint
> Francis and Hitler except we don't happen to agree with Hitler. No-one
> believes that.
I don't think of any of what she posted as someones belief system - it is a
misinformed person. In the short time I've helped with rescue work I've had
the opportunity to change peoples' minds about declaw. I can't believe the
number of people who ask what is the good age to declaw the cat/kitten they
are about to adopt but when told gently (and I don't believe that you have
to shout it) what is involved, most people who really love cats (or just
want to have one for a pet or for their kids) would even think of going
through with it.
>
> > I'm pointing out that some people have different priorities in life & I
> > don't believe that you can tell people how or what to believe in.
>
> See, this is completely wrong. I know of a man (let's call him Bradley*)
> who injected someone else's kitten with kerosene. I feel fairly strongly,
> and I am as convinced as I can be, that this was the wrong thing to do. I
> think most people would agree. I feel that the kind of person who would
do
> this kind of thing is what people mean when they use the word "scumbag".
If
> any further proof were necessary, later events bore me out and last I
heard
> he was in prison.
>
<more snippity, left this in tho cuz it was brilliant>
Patch
You have summed me up perfectly. This is *exactly* how I feel about it.
Patch
Brendan Carson and Catherine Gunson
Schroedinger's Cat addy instead of this one. But I am sure people have
worked this out as he did sign his initials, BDC 8-)...
Sherry
>KNOWING that there was a cat in the house, then deliberately went out and
>bought a leather sofa and then chucked some kind of spack attack about
>"scratching" before the cat had even laid eyes on the treasured object.
>He/she/it didn't even see if training would work first.
>
>Cat
That was my beef. Worst of all, it sounded as if the cat didn't even get a
"probation" period to see if it was even *interested* in scratching the couch.
Sherry
Susan Ravan
cake. Your OPINION that this is wrong is ok, it's your opinion and you
are entitled to it. I don't approve of declawing, but I don't demonize
the owners either. Now, if you (and I am not just talking to Natatlie)
really want to put your money where your mouth is, I have a challenge
for anyone who really think you have a solution. I have a customer who
has a cat in her family, a house pet that her son picked out at the
shelter. The cat is now about two years old, has used a scratchings
posts for all this time. The cat has decided drapery and furniture are
more fun. Needless to say, she isn't going to get rid of the cat, it
will stay where it is. She will have the cat declawed if the behavior
persists. Give her a solution. Many of you talk the talk, let's see
who can walk the walk.
Susan Ravan
Susan Ravan
Now biting, peeing problems.
Susan Ravan
Susan Ravan
Susan Ravan
"Bob Brenchley." wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:45:14 -0400, Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In a perfect world, rehoming would work.
>
> Nothing is perfect, but the UK gets as close to it as it is possible
> to get.
>
> >However unfortunate, the cat
> >would have probably ended up in a shelter before a home would be found.
> >Shelters put down animals every day.
>
> Sadly that is true in the USA - a very sad reflection on your society.
> Don't you think you should start to do something about it?
I as an individual, or our country, should start doing something about
it? Efforts have been and are made every day by lots of people. If
people would neuter/spay, overpopulation would not be so great. Many
groups here try to educate people, but it is an uphill battle.
>
> > As much as I dislike declawing, I
> >understand why some people do it when the option is declaw or out the
> >door.
>
> Frankly, in most situations, I think the cat would be better of with
> its claws and out the door. Better than a life of pain and deprivation
> any day.
Out the door and under the wheels of a car or in the jaws of a dog? Not
better in my book. A few communities have leash laws that extend to
cats as well.
>
> > It is very easy to sit in judgment on others. Plus, most vets
> >don't tell the owners what the procedure entails, just as *no* vet I
> >have ever seen/used tells owners about the problems with cats and
> >vaccinations.
>
> Then you have some VERY poor vets in your area.
>
> Outside the USA/Canada vets have scruples and only remove a claw for a
> valid medical reason. The never has been a valid medical reason to
> remove all the claws on a cat.
>
> In my country vets do inform owners of the risk/benefit balance on
> vaccinations. One reason many cats are not vaccinated for certain
> things which are not a major risk in their area.
>
> >Susan Ravan
>
> Learn that there is NEVER a reason for elective declawing. Learn that
> it is possible to run a shelter system where all but a very tiny
> number of cats are found loving indoor/outdoor homes. Learn how badly
> the USA stands in international terms on cat care and welfare.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
Susan Ravan
han...@netins.net
Kathy K.=^..^=
"Susan Ravan" <sra...@ellijay.com> wrote in message
news:3D1E7486...@ellijay.com...
Susan Ravan
> See, this is completely wrong. I know of a man (let's call him Bradley*)
> who injected someone else's kitten with kerosene. I feel fairly strongly,
> and I am as convinced as I can be, that this was the wrong thing to do. I
The problem with using this as a comparison, it the act you describe is
against the law.
>
>
> Where would you put someone who disagrees about needlessly mutilating an
> animal?
Your opinion.
>
> >
> Anyway, if forcing your views on others is wrong then passing laws to force
> your views on others is just as wrong.
Just how does one get 'their' views passed as law. Far as I know, no
one has ever asked.
If my next door neighbor has a belief system that involves
> him driving on the wrong side of the road, I don't want him to have the
> freedom to express his views in a personally meaningful and rewarding
> fashion. I want him arrested before he leaves his driveway.
Gee, there is a movie out about that right now, let's arrest the person
before the offense occurs. BTW, that would only entail a traffic
ticket, hardly an arrestable offense.
>
>
>
> r
> injecting his brother's cat with kerosene. On the scale of his belief
> system, maybe he sincerely he made the best choice he could do with a
> tedious afternoon.
Owning a home is legal. Injecting the cat is not. You are comparing
apples and watermelons.
>
>
>
>
>
Susan Ravan
Karen
wrote on 6/29/02 10:50 PM:
>
>> See, this is completely wrong. I know of a man (let's call him Bradley*)
>> who injected someone else's kitten with kerosene. I feel fairly strongly,
>> and I am as convinced as I can be, that this was the wrong thing to do. I
>
> The problem with using this as a comparison, it the act you describe is
> against the law.
>
>>
>>
>> Where would you put someone who disagrees about needlessly mutilating an
>> animal?
>
> Your opinion.
Cutting off toes isn't mutilation? I mean, put aside anything else. Pretend
it's totally painless (even though it is well documented that it IS and one
concern of declaw surgery that vets *freely admit to* is the difficulty of
pain management in a cat after declaw surgery, but let's just say it is not
painful), and that all the skeptics are correct and there are no bad
outcomes, no percentage of declaws go bad; cutting off 10 toes is
mutilation. From Mirriam-Webster:
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child
mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of :
And to say toes are not essential, well essential to WHAT? Our toes are
probably LESS essential than cats toes and still should you cut off ALL of
them from YOUR feet it *is* mutilation. I mean, you've really GOT to start
there, and when you start there, what other conclusion can you draw than it
IS needless. It is not to the cats benefit just as it would not be to our
benefit to lose any of our appendages no matter how well we could compensate
without them. Take it one step further and have someone you are devoted to
say to you, "I love you, but I'm afraid in order to live with you I have to
cut your toes off. I promise you'll be just fine after a while. It will only
be excruciating for a bit." Well, would YOU take that deal? I don't think
so. You'd walk. You'd say, "Sorry." And you would leave the environment of
your own accord, whether it meant living in the street. Or at least you
would if you had any dignity or brains. So it should be different just
because you are saying it to a cat? It isn't "opinion". It's just not right.
Karen
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
Moronic posting style corrected. You have not been charged for this
service but I reserve the right to charge in the future if you make
the same mistake again.
>Shades of PETA
>
>
In most things I disagree strongly with NegativeL, however, when it
comes to declawing, only a real animal hater would even dream of doing
it. To leave a cat in lifelong pain.... SICK.
--
Bob.
A cat without claws is the result of a vet without scruples.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>
>> See, this is completely wrong. I know of a man (let's call him Bradley*)
>> who injected someone else's kitten with kerosene. I feel fairly strongly,
>> and I am as convinced as I can be, that this was the wrong thing to do. I
>
>The problem with using this as a comparison, it the act you describe is
>against the law.
So is declawing - in civilized countries.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>
>
>"Bob Brenchley." wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:45:14 -0400, Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In a perfect world, rehoming would work.
>>
>> Nothing is perfect, but the UK gets as close to it as it is possible
>> to get.
>>
>> >However unfortunate, the cat
>> >would have probably ended up in a shelter before a home would be found.
>> >Shelters put down animals every day.
>>
>> Sadly that is true in the USA - a very sad reflection on your society.
>> Don't you think you should start to do something about it?
>
>I as an individual, or our country, should start doing something about
>it?
Both.
> Efforts have been and are made every day by lots of people.
Oh sure - and yet in the UK and much of Europe we don't kill millions
of cats a year because we are to lazy to find proper homes for them.
> If
>people would neuter/spay,
Ok moron. An English lesson for you. Neuter is the term that covers
both sexes. Spay is the female term, castrate is the male term. It is
therefore correct to say "spay/castrate" or just "neuter", it is never
correct to say spay/neuter.
> overpopulation would not be so great. Many
>groups here try to educate people, but it is an uphill battle.
That may be true, but that does not give your country the right to
kill millions of cats per year.
>>
>> > As much as I dislike declawing, I
>> >understand why some people do it when the option is declaw or out the
>> >door.
>>
>> Frankly, in most situations, I think the cat would be better of with
>> its claws and out the door. Better than a life of pain and deprivation
>> any day.
>
>Out the door and under the wheels of a car or in the jaws of a dog? Not
>better in my book. A few communities have leash laws that extend to
>cats as well.
Yes. I think even death would be preferable to declaw. At least the
poor cat has a chance.
>>
>> > It is very easy to sit in judgment on others. Plus, most vets
>> >don't tell the owners what the procedure entails, just as *no* vet I
>> >have ever seen/used tells owners about the problems with cats and
>> >vaccinations.
>>
>> Then you have some VERY poor vets in your area.
>>
>> Outside the USA/Canada vets have scruples and only remove a claw for a
>> valid medical reason. The never has been a valid medical reason to
>> remove all the claws on a cat.
>>
>> In my country vets do inform owners of the risk/benefit balance on
>> vaccinations. One reason many cats are not vaccinated for certain
>> things which are not a major risk in their area.
>>
>> >Susan Ravan
>>
>> Learn that there is NEVER a reason for elective declawing. Learn that
>> it is possible to run a shelter system where all but a very tiny
>> number of cats are found loving indoor/outdoor homes. Learn how badly
>> the USA stands in international terms on cat care and welfare.
>
>Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
Then it is about time you learnt.
>>
>> Then come back.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> You Have The Right To Remain Silent, So Please Shut Up.
--
Bob.
Artificial intelligence is no match for your natural stupidity.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>Sorry, bad argument. I have three declawed cats, all are 12 years old.
>Now biting, peeing problems.
>Susan Ravan
And we should take the word of a moronic top-poster?
I think not.
--
Bob.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
we hear you talk.
Natalie
wrote:
>I have seen some self righteous posters before but some of you take the
>cake. Your OPINION that this is wrong is ok, it's your opinion and you
>are entitled to it. I don't approve of declawing, but I don't demonize
>the owners either. Now, if you (and I am not just talking to Natatlie)
>really want to put your money where your mouth is, I have a challenge
>for anyone who really think you have a solution. I have a customer who
>has a cat in her family, a house pet that her son picked out at the
>shelter. The cat is now about two years old, has used a scratchings
>posts for all this time. The cat has decided drapery and furniture are
>more fun. Needless to say, she isn't going to get rid of the cat, it
>will stay where it is. She will have the cat declawed if the behavior
>persists. Give her a solution. Many of you talk the talk, let's see
>who can walk the walk.
>Susan Ravan
>
What's she done so far to train the cat back to using approved
scratching areas? Has anything changed in the cat's environment?
Natalie
Schroedinger's Cat
> Sorry, bad argument. I have three declawed cats, all are 12 years old.
> Now biting, peeing problems.
> Susan Ravan
I'm not sure you make sense. Are you saying that NOW your cats DO have
biting and peeing problems, or are you actually illiterate?
And, to quote someone on rec.equestrian: "The plural of anecdotes is not
data."
You have asked Lyn for citations from veterinary medical literature, which
she has provided before and no doubt will provide again. Could you kindly
do the same to support your position?
Cat (methinks this mindless bint is merely trolling, to vary her otherwise
pointless existence).
Schroedinger's Cat
> Yes I could have caught PETAitis, which it seems you may have.
So you are saying that standing up for the rights of animals to have pain
and cruelty-free existence is somehow bad? Get a life. Wait a minute;
before that, get a brain. They can be had quite cheaply at Nintendo stores.
Cat
Schroedinger's Cat
>Now, if you (and I am not just talking to Natatlie)
> really want to put your money where your mouth is, I have a challenge
> for anyone who really think you have a solution. I have a customer who
> has a cat in her family, a house pet that her son picked out at the
> shelter. The cat is now about two years old, has used a scratchings
> posts for all this time. The cat has decided drapery and furniture are
> more fun. Needless to say, she isn't going to get rid of the cat, it
> will stay where it is. She will have the cat declawed if the behavior
> persists. Give her a solution. Many of you talk the talk, let's see
> who can walk the walk.
Well... I guess to start with, could there be a reason the old scratching
post is not "fun" any more? Maybe get it re-covered, or try a new one of
different style, or experiment with different surfaces, eg sissal vs carpet;
horizontal vs vertical... Was he originally trained to stay away from the
drapes/furniture, or did he just naturally always use the post? Maybe he
has not, up until now, realised that they are off limits, because he had
purely by accident been habitually doing the "right" thing. I guess if that
is part of the problem there's the initial step of grabbing him when he goes
for the off-limit object and immediately placing him on his scratching post.
The next step on that one I suppose is the water-spray stuff if he still
goes for the wrong thing, and heavy praise when he goes for the right thing
(although of course praise applies earlier too). I don't know much about
clicker training but it sounds tailor-made for this sort of situation as it
starts off by rewarding directional behaviours (at least it does with
horses - you reward the horse every time it touches the cone with its nose;
one could do the same with the scratching post). I saw on Phil P's site a
"scratching object" where if the cat scratches at it, bits of dry food come
out... could be a useful positive reinforcer for when the human is absent.
Claw clipping would minimise the damage until the cat works out what is
easiest for a quiet life... and a 2yo is certainly going to be less set in
his ways than if he had been hanging off curtains for 10 years...
But d'you see that here is someone who at least is willing to try a few
things before rushing out and giving an adult cat this operation (which I
believe is more traumatic, psychologically and physically in adult cats)?
What upset everybody so much about Juniper's friend was that there was no
attempt to a) see if the cat would claw the sofa at all, and b) see if the
cat could be trained. (There was, also, the whole thing of the room-mate
acquiring the sofa KNOWING there was a cat in the house in the first place,
and then acting all freaky about scratching; they could have discussed all
the options before putting the other person in their perceived "bind").
There's also a lot of useful info on "directed scratching" on Phil P's site:
www.maxshouse.com. I think also included there is clinical information on
the mechanics of claws, and declawing, that is not done in a "PETA-esque"
way, which is useful to give people who are considering it; you may be less
"anti" declawing than a lot of the rest of us, but at least information is
no weight to carry, and it could be worth giving to this customer of yours.
She too might not realise it is more than just a manicure.
HTH
Cat (by the way, I am from Australia. We don't have PETA, and we don't have
declawing. I had heard of it, but was truly horrified when these friends of
my mothers moved to the USA and bought a kitten who had already been done.
The woman rang my mum and could not stop marvelling about how the toes had
been lopped off "at the joint". Up until then I didn't know what it
involved fully. It is illegal here; most people have more trouble with
their dogs destroying furniture than their cats...)
Brendan Carson and Catherine Gunson
"Bryan S. Slick" <br...@slick-family.not> wrote in message
> [MsJuniper]
> [Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:29:43 -0400]
>
> :you're a vegan or buddist ?
>
> *cackle*
>
> PERFECT response!!!!!!
Only for the first three seconds. Let's look deeper. I'd like to point out
I hate religious/ethical discussions on the net.
Someone seems to be assuming that if someone eats meat, then that person
can't criticise other animal cruelty. It's sort of a "don't judge my
friend's actions
unless you're perfect" thing.
But that doesn't make sense. There are no perfect people, there are no
people who aren't guilty of hypocrisy in some sense of the word every single
day. But still, every day, we all make decisions about what's wrong and
right. And I think that it's right that we make those decisions.
Do you think driving at 120 kph through a school crossing is wrong? But
have you ever ever exceeded the speed limit? Does that invalidate your
judgement? Does it mean that driving that fast through the crossing was
right after all?
Do you think stealing is wrong? But have you ever noticed that your had
parked more than an hour in a one hour parking space without a ticket, and
then done anything other than rung the city parking office in tears to
confess your
crime and volunteer to pay? Does that invalidate your judgement about the
rights and wrongs of stealing? Should you be disqualified from any further
discussions about the ethics of
stealing?
Do you believe children starving while rich people indulge themselves is
wrong? But do you own any CDs? You could have spent that CD's worth of
money on Community Aid Abroad, or towards a ventilator thingy for the local
children's hospital, but you didn't. What does that say about
where your priorities really lie? Are you still able to say "children
starving in Africa is wrong" even though your behaviour showed it was less
important to you than owning that particular CD?
In short, do you live every moment of every day doing always and only what
is good and pure and true? Do you know anyone who does? And if not, what
should we do about moral dilemmas: should we all just not talk about or not
think about issues of right and wrong until some perfect person comes along
to explain what we should do?
If we exclude hypocrites from any discussions of this kind of stuff, it'll
be pretty damn quiet. Nobody's perfect. But someone has to work out what's
the right thing to do, and we're the best we have.
BDC
Lyn
> Sorry, bad argument. I have three declawed cats, all are 12 years old.
> Now biting, peeing problems.
> Susan Ravan
Well, maybe your cats don't but many do. And it has been published in
a peer-reviewed veterinary medical report that more declawed cats
exhibit inappropriate elimination problems, versus intact cats:
Greater incidence of inappropriate elimination problems: More
"(52.4%) declawed cats than non-declawed cats (29.1%) were reported by
owners to have inappropriate elimination problems." Source: "Small
World Veterinary Association meeting report, 2001"
The same article discussed behavioral problems associated with
declawing in general:
Greater incidence of long-term behavior problems :
"(33%) developed at least one behavior problem."
"(17.9%) had an increase in biting habits or intensity."
"(15.4%) would not use the litter box"
So, I guess my argument is more valid than your's...since your's is
merely "anectdotal information", which we all know, wins no debate.
-L.
Lyn
> I have seen some self righteous posters before but some of you take the
> cake.
I have seen some indiginant, ill-educated pro-declaw advocates before,
and you are mediocre, at best.
>Your OPINION that this is wrong is ok, it's your opinion and you
> are entitled to it.
No, it is not an "opinion". It is medical fact, proven by published
studies regarding the effects of declaw surgery on felines (from a
previous post):
1. Veterinary Surgery Journal:
50% post surgical complication rate (Vet Surg 1994
Jul-Aug;23(4):274-80)
2. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association:
19.8% long-term complication rate (J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998 Aug
1;213(3):370-3)
"high complication rate for [declawing]" (J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998
Aug 1;213(3):370-3)
Declawing is 100% preventable. "The most common reason for considering
declawing is to avoid damage caused by the cat scratching household
materials", which can be dealth with by less invasive measures (J Am
Vet Med Assoc 2001 Jan 1;218(1):43-7)
3. World Small Animal Veterinary Association - 2001:
Greater incidence of inappropriate elimination problems: More
"(52.4%) declawed cats than non-declawed cats (29.1%) were reported by
owners to have inappropriate elimination problems."
Greater incidence of long-term behavior problems :
"(33%) developed at least one behavior problem."
"(17.9%) had an increase in biting habits or intensity."
"(15.4%) would not use the litter box"
"Where possible legislation should be enacted to prohibit the
performance of non-therapeutic surgical procedures for purely cosmetic
purposes,
in particular; d. Declawing and defanging."
4. Canadian Veterinary Journal:
Declawing puts cats at risk for leg fracture (Can Vet J 1998
Jun;39(6):337-8)
And, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Furthermore, The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, a
group of over *60,000* veterinarians are completely against declawing
unless there is a medical issue (avulsued nail, etc.). In addition,
there are many, many lisenced veterinarians who have spoken out
against declawing in public forums and published journals. The Cat
Fancier's assosciation is against declawing. I can provide references
for unsubstantiated statements in this paragraph, if anyone is
interested.
>I don't approve of declawing, but I don't demonize
> the owners either.
You should. Declawing ia a barbaric practice that should be outlawed
in North America, and world-wide.
> Now, if you (and I am not just talking to Natatlie)
> really want to put your money where your mouth is, I have a challenge
> for anyone who really think you have a solution. I have a customer who
> has a cat in her family, a house pet that her son picked out at the
> shelter. The cat is now about two years old, has used a scratchings
> posts for all this time. The cat has decided drapery and furniture are
> more fun. Needless to say, she isn't going to get rid of the cat, it
> will stay where it is. She will have the cat declawed if the behavior
> persists. Give her a solution. Many of you talk the talk, let's see
> who can walk the walk.
We (multiple posters) have posted numerous ways to curb scratching
behavior. The links provided in this thread provide multiple
soultions. If you have not found them yet, you either don't care or
don't read very carefully. So, I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt, and list a few here (off the top of my head):
1. Sticky Paws
2. Frequent nail trims
3. SoftPaws
4. Feliaway
5. Large, substantial cat trees/posts that have multiple scratching
surfaces available
6. Catnip on the trees, above
7. Throw rugs turned inside-out, and rolled up and secured, which
serve as scratching toys
8. Turbo mouse scratching pad
The scenarios/solutions are endless.
http://www.stopdeclaw.com, http://www.catscratching.com/, and
http://www.maxshouse.com have many solutions.
Declawing is the lazy person's way of dealing with scratching
"problems". With a little effort on the part of the owner, cats can
be trained to scratch appropriately, and/or scratching can be made
into a non-issue. But one must be motivated to make these methods
work, and not simply say "he won't use the post, I'll declaw him".
That is the coward's solution.
-L.
Patch
> Shades of PETA
>
???
Explain please ?
Patch
Patch
> I have seen some self righteous posters before but some of you take the
> cake. Your OPINION that this is wrong is ok, it's your opinion and you
> are entitled to it. I don't approve of declawing, but I don't demonize
> the owners either.
Any why do you think so many declaw ?
Because people sit on their morals and dont speak up. That constitues
weakness of character in my book.
Now, if you (and I am not just talking to Natatlie)
> really want to put your money where your mouth is, I have a challenge
> for anyone who really think you have a solution. I have a customer who
> has a cat in her family, a house pet that her son picked out at the
> shelter. The cat is now about two years old, has used a scratchings
> posts for all this time. The cat has decided drapery and furniture are
> more fun. Needless to say, she isn't going to get rid of the cat, it
> will stay where it is. She will have the cat declawed if the behavior
> persists. Give her a solution. Many of you talk the talk, let's see
> who can walk the walk.
There are already many solutions posted so I`m not going to repeat them
needlessly. What I will say is, if she tries the solutions and they fail
[they *do* work so long as the human can be bothered....], if she cares a
jot about the cat, tell her I will pay for him to be transported to me in
the UK and I will give him a permanent home where I guarantee he will not be
declawed [it cant be done here in UK, and rightly so] and he wont scratch
anything innapropriate any more than my 14 cats, and they dont scratch
innapropriately at all, ever.
Is that "walking the walk" enough for you ?
[Everyone who knows me here knows its not hot air, I am prepared to do it
to save this cat from mutilation and permanent problems of health and
wellbeing, and as he is more than likely to start peeing everywhere or
biting or any of the other factual *documented* problems which arise
directly from declaw which will probably result in her dumping him anyway].
If she puts curtains and furniture above the health of a living creature,
quite frankly she doesnt deserve to have him anyway.
Self righteous ?
No.
Plain truth ?
Yes.
Patch
Patch
"Schroedinger's Cat" <schroe...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d1ec9af$0$31826$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Susan Ravan" <sra...@ellijay.com> wrote in message
> news:3D1E7460...@ellijay.com...
> > Sorry, bad argument. I have three declawed cats, all are 12 years old.
> > Now biting, peeing problems.
> > Susan Ravan
>
> I'm not sure you make sense.
Nor am I particularly as she said this earlier;
" I don't approve of declawing, "
But of course we must`nt assume she did it to them or if she didnt that she
took on three mutilated cats to save her the expense of doing it herself to
three other cats......
Are you saying that NOW your cats DO have
> biting and peeing problems, or are you actually illiterate?
>
> And, to quote someone on rec.equestrian: "The plural of anecdotes is not
> data."
>
> You have asked Lyn for citations from veterinary medical literature, which
> she has provided before and no doubt will provide again. Could you kindly
> do the same to support your position?
>
> Cat (methinks this mindless bint is merely trolling, to vary her otherwise
> pointless existence).
Methinks you are probably right.
Patch
Natalie
Apparently, you care about animals. Blimey, you must be some kind of
freak....
:)
Natalie
Patch
"Natalie" <scr...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d1fece3....@news.btinternet.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 19:56:01 +0100, "Patch"
> <d.guipag...@LOLntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Susan Ravan" <sra...@ellijay.com> wrote in message
> >news:3D1E7486...@ellijay.com...
> >> Shades of PETA
> >>
> >
> >???
> >Explain please ?
> >
> >Patch
> >
> >
>
> Apparently, you care about animals.
Oh bum.
I promise not to do it again.....[NOT !!!].
Blimey, you must be some kind of
> freak....
Ssshhhh - dont tell everyone !!
>
> :)
Heh, well I`m happy to be in the ALAF [Animal Lovers Are "Freaks" ] "club".
I`m in some very good company :-))
Patch
Edward A. Dimmick
>
>
> By the way, I understand that my girlfriend is a huge contributor & activist
> towards 'Homes For Humanity'. Puts her in a different light when you think
> of all the hundreds of lives she's changed... by providing a home & longterm
> financial stability for entire families...
>
So? There is a particular little Austrian fellow who was known to be a
nonsmoking vegetraian who loved animals. Is that enough to justify the
murder of 12,000,000 of his fellow humans? Neither does writing checks
to a charity undo the fact that your friend *paid* to have her cat
maimed for no reason more than her vanity. A real friend will care
enough to tell you when you've done something wrong (or are about to);
it still might not stop you, but 'accepting' and 'respecting' choices no
matter who gets hurt is not being a friend.
-ED \1/
--
"There's a great big open sky somewhere
Where the cool wind blows and the water still runs clear
Can't breathe the air in here
And I'm going crazy again..." - Jamie Walker
Edward A. Dimmick
>
>
> The Bush Baby is evil.
>
That's a bit extreme. It may be naive, easily manipulated, in some
matters callous and out of touch with the lives of average people. But
Evil? Sorry, don't see it.
> Mother Theresa was not.
>
What would you call someone who consistently spoke out against
contraception in a nation staggering under horrendous overpopulation?
There is great hazard in trying to apply absolute labels to human beings.
han...@netins.net
"Patch" <d.guipag...@LOLntlworld.com> wrote in message
amazed me on how 'pretend animal lovers' will write off any PETA people.
BTW - could I be a member of the group ALAF? <g> Cool... ;-)
Kathy K=^..^=
Edward A. Dimmick
>>See, this is completely wrong. I know of a man (let's call him Bradley*)
>>who injected someone else's kitten with kerosene. I feel fairly strongly,
>>and I am as convinced as I can be, that this was the wrong thing to do. I
>>
> The problem with using this as a comparison, it the act you describe is
> against the law.
>
So is declawing, in many places. Care to explain how the nature of
cats, ethics, or the laws of physics suddenly change across national
boundaries?
>>Where would you put someone who disagrees about needlessly mutilating an
>>animal?
>>
> Your opinion.
>
It is my opinion that killing and eating people for entertainment is
wrong. By your reasoning, however, someone who disagreed would be
equally entitled to act on their 'opinion.' Are you volunteering to be
first on the menu?
>>Anyway, if forcing your views on others is wrong then passing laws to force
>>your views on others is just as wrong.
>>
> Just how does one get 'their' views passed as law. Far as I know, no
> one has ever asked.
>
You're evading the point. All laws reflect someone's views of what is
right and wrong, and the fact that laws exist at all means that someone
else must disagree with those views. Ergo, the very existence of law
entails the imposition of one person's will upon another. If you
propose that imposing one's views on another is always wrong, and that
all opinions are of equal merit, then you must also argue for the
immediate cessation of all systems of law and law enforcement.
>> If my next door neighbor has a belief system that involves
>>him driving on the wrong side of the road, I don't want him to have the
>>freedom to express his views in a personally meaningful and rewarding
>>fashion. I want him arrested before he leaves his driveway.
>>
> Gee, there is a movie out about that right now, let's arrest the person
> before the offense occurs.
>
That's basically what DUI and similar laws entail. Face it, the vast
majority of drunk drivers make it home without incident. Yet you can
get arrested for it and even lose your license. Odd, that.
Incidentally, if you'd actually *seen* the movie you would know that it
is nowhere near as simple ('scuze me, simplistic) as you claim.
> BTW, that would only entail a traffic ticket, hardly an arrestable offense.
>
Really? Try it and report back to us. You get one phone call, right?
> Owning a home is legal. Injecting the cat is not. You are comparing
> apples and watermelons.
>
Owning a home harms nobody. Maiming a cat causes harm. You are
comparing bananas and qumqwats. :)
Edward A. Dimmick
>
>
> Furthermore, The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, a
> group of over *60,000* veterinarians
>
I think your figure might be off. There are at most 100,000 practicing
veterinarians in the US, and AVAR does *not* include a majority of them.
I'd be surprised if they have as many as 600 active veterinary
members. Bear in mind however that unlike most professional
associations AVAR accepts non-veterinarians as members so they may have
60,000 or more total - but 60,000 vets, no way.
> [AVAR] are completely against declawing
> unless there is a medical issue (avulsued nail, etc.).
>
While I'd have to go with them on that you should know that AVAR also
supports the imposition of a complete ban on all 'use' of non-human
animals for any purpose whatsoever (food, fiber, recreation, research,
etc.). As such they are not only opposing the will of society and the
biological nature of humankind, they are also effectively calling for a
large number of the colleagues to be rendered unemployed. These facts
do not sit well with the profession.
Patch
<han...@netins.net> wrote in message news:afoe9s$gf6$1...@ins22.netins.net...
Dont they just !!
I hate to burst Susan`s bubble, but I`m not even a member of PETA !!
However, I am a member of the anti-docking alliance but it will *really*
cheese her off that it involves letter writing to Parliament, not throwing
paint on dockers [tempting as the idea is ;-)].
> BTW - could I be a member of the group ALAF? <g> Cool... ;-)
Ooooh, I dont know - membership is strict -
You *must* be prepared to follow the main rule;
Members must lovingly stroke at least *one animal of some kind every single
day.
*Subsection 1a)
members of ALAF are allowed to stroke the same animal each day to qualify
as active members of the aforementioned club, however, if it is the same
animal daily, an additional scritch under the chin of said animal at least
once a week is required to maintain active member status.
Do you, Kathy of alt.cats, agree to abide by the main rule as outlined by
Patch, Founder of ALAF ?
Patch
Lyn
The best you can do is retort to aligning your opponent to those
perceived to be extremists? Ha!
Why don't you post some published research data supporting your
stance? You won't. You can't...Because there isn't any.
Sorry. Buzzzt...you lose.
-L.
Lyn
> Cite the documentation, please.
First of all, top-posting is irritating at worst, and poor netiquette
at best. You would do well to read the Google posting guidelines:
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/posting_style.html
"Summarize what you are following up.
When you follow up an existing article, Google Groups includes the
full article in quotes, with the cursor at the top of the article.
Tempting though it is to just start typing your message, please STOP
and do two things first. Look at the quoted text and delete parts that
are irrelevant. Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing
there. Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through
your post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article. And if your
reply appears on a site before the original article does, they'll get
the gist of what you're talking about."
Secondly, to answer your request, I have posted numerous references to
published data documenting the problems with declawing, elsewhere in
this thread. What I posted was a mere sampling of what is
available....if one is inclined to ask questions first, and chop off
toes later...
-L.
Lyn
> Gee, how original
I have yet to see you post a *single* publication supporting YOUR
stance. And you accuse us of "self-righteousness"?
Methinks Cat is right. You ARE a troll.
-L.
han...@netins.net
"Patch" <d.guipag...@LOLntlworld.com> wrote in message
critters that I can pet or any limits on how many strokes I'm allowed to
dole out. Thank you Patch! <g> My life is complete now....
Kathy K.=^..^=
Lyn
> > See, this is completely wrong. I know of a man (let's call him Bradley*)
> > who injected someone else's kitten with kerosene. I feel fairly strongly,
> > and I am as convinced as I can be, that this was the wrong thing to do. I
>
> The problem with using this as a comparison, it the act you describe is
> against the law.
In the US (just a few examples):
Injecting a kitten with kerosene (or other toxic substances) if it is
done in the name of science at an approved institution, even without
anesthetic, is legal.
Cockfighting is legal (in some states).
Live pidgeon target shooting is legal (in most states).
Chaining a dog is legal.
Hitting an animal is legal (as long as you don't do permanent damage).
Hitting your kids is legal (ditto).
Does the legal status of any of these actions make them morally right?
-L.
Patch
<han...@netins.net> wrote in message news:afoij5$f19$1...@ins22.netins.net...
>
> "Patch" <d.guipag...@LOLntlworld.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> > Do you, Kathy of alt.cats, agree to abide by the main rule as outlined
by
> > Patch, Founder of ALAF ?
> >
> > Patch
> >
> >
> " I do." I'm so excited!
<solomnly spoken>
Kathy, you are hereby accepted and given Active Member status, effective
immediately.
I hope there aren't any limits on how many
> critters that I can pet or any limits on how many strokes I'm allowed to
> dole out.
Rule 2 covers that ;
There is no ALAF limit whatsover on the number of animals an active member
may stroke, nor of the number of strokes allowed.
Subsection 2a)
i)
The ALAF takes no responsibility for any pain or injury suffered by active
members from hand or wrist strain as a result of extensive animal stroking.
It is up to members to take responsibility for precaution against such
injury.
ii)
The ALAF suggests members take the following action to minimise risk ;
Use both hands alternately if feeling the strain in predominant stroking
hand.
>Thank you Patch! <g> My life is complete >now....
Lol, I aim to please <g>
Patch
JonnyLotto
<B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote an opinion, the merits of which the
court is still arguing:
>On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 23:38:53 -0400, Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Bob Brenchley." wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:45:14 -0400, Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In a perfect world, rehoming would work.
>>>
>>> Nothing is perfect, but the UK gets as close to it as it is possible
>>> to get.
>>>
>>> >However unfortunate, the cat
>>> >would have probably ended up in a shelter before a home would be found.
>>> >Shelters put down animals every day.
>>>
>>> Sadly that is true in the USA - a very sad reflection on your society.
>>> Don't you think you should start to do something about it?
>>
>>I as an individual, or our country, should start doing something about
>>it?
>
>Both.
>
>> Efforts have been and are made every day by lots of people.
>
>Oh sure - and yet in the UK and much of Europe we don't kill millions
>of cats a year because we are to lazy to find proper homes for them.
"We"? If you weren't killfiled by so many posters from the UK there would be a
lot of nasty-grams objecting to the inclusion of bob in any group including
them.
>
>> If
>>people would neuter/spay,
>
>Ok moron. An English lesson for you. Neuter is the term that covers
>both sexes. Spay is the female term, castrate is the male term. It is
>therefore correct to say "spay/castrate" or just "neuter", it is never
>correct to say spay/neuter.
You still suck, bob.
"Spay/neuter" is perfectly acceptable in North America, just as your continued
existence (unfortunately) is acceptable in the UK.
>
>> overpopulation would not be so great. Many
>>groups here try to educate people, but it is an uphill battle.
>
>That may be true, but that does not give your country the right to
>kill millions of cats per year.
>>>
>>> > As much as I dislike declawing, I
>>> >understand why some people do it when the option is declaw or out the
>>> >door.
>>>
>>> Frankly, in most situations, I think the cat would be better of with
>>> its claws and out the door. Better than a life of pain and deprivation
>>> any day.
>>
>>Out the door and under the wheels of a car or in the jaws of a dog? Not
>>better in my book. A few communities have leash laws that extend to
>>cats as well.
>
>Yes. I think even death would be preferable to declaw. At least the
>poor cat has a chance.
>>>
>>> > It is very easy to sit in judgment on others. Plus, most vets
>>> >don't tell the owners what the procedure entails, just as *no* vet I
>>> >have ever seen/used tells owners about the problems with cats and
>>> >vaccinations.
>>>
>>> Then you have some VERY poor vets in your area.
>>>
>>> Outside the USA/Canada vets have scruples and only remove a claw for a
>>> valid medical reason. The never has been a valid medical reason to
>>> remove all the claws on a cat.
>>>
>>> In my country vets do inform owners of the risk/benefit balance on
>>> vaccinations. One reason many cats are not vaccinated for certain
>>> things which are not a major risk in their area.
>>>
>>> >Susan Ravan
>>>
>>> Learn that there is NEVER a reason for elective declawing. Learn that
>>> it is possible to run a shelter system where all but a very tiny
>>> number of cats are found loving indoor/outdoor homes. Learn how badly
>>> the USA stands in international terms on cat care and welfare.
>>
>>Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
>
>Then it is about time you learnt.
>>>
>>> Then come back.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob.
>>>
>>> You Have The Right To Remain Silent, So Please Shut Up.
--
JonnyLotto
"Reading ability always seems to be a problem with some people on the
other side of the Atlantic."
Bob Brenchley in alt.cats
Arjun Ray
pri...@user.kingsnake.com (Lyn) wrote:
| Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com> wrote in message news:<3D1E740B...@ellijay.com>...
|> I have a challenge for anyone who really think you have a solution.
|> I have a customer who has a cat in her family, [...] The cat is now
|> about two years old, has used a scratchings posts for all this time.
|> The cat has decided drapery and furniture are more fun. [...] Give
|> her a solution.
There is no cut and dried solution. All solutions are based on giving
the cat something that it will *like* to scratch.
Not what you or your customer would like the cat to scratch, but what
the *cat* will like to scratch. Some experimentation is inevitable.
| With a little effort on the part of the owner, cats can be trained to
| scratch appropriately, and/or scratching can be made into a non-issue.
| But one must be motivated to make these methods work
Right. Working at it means ensuring that cat gets what it needs. E.g.,
if it likes rope, don't carpet the post. If carpet, then chances are
the harder and scratchier it is, the better. Some cats like cardboard -
so give it cardboard. Most cats will take to vertical surfaces, but
some like to scratch on floors - so give it something horizontal or
gently sloped.
Encourage the cat, with praise, with catnip on the surface, with "good
things". It also helps to place the scratching post somewhere that the
*cat* will like - not an out of the way corner, but within easy reach of
its usual haunts: feeding area and sleeping area(s) mostly, maybe even
the litterbox too. Multiple posts can't hurt.
And make sure the scratching surface doesn't wobble! (That rules out
99% of the junk you're likely to find in the average pet supply store
unless you're willing to customize with extra nails etc.)
Bottom line: it's *easy*.
Lyn
> Lyn wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > Furthermore, The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, a
> > group of over *60,000* veterinarians
>
> >
> I think your figure might be off. There are at most 100,000 practicing
> veterinarians in the US, and AVAR does *not* include a majority of them.
Sorry, my mistake. I should have said 60,000 members (a figure from
them). Not all members are vets. Some are vet med students and
technicians. What percentage of those are vets, I will find out, (if
I can).
<snip>
>
> > [AVAR] are completely against declawing
> > unless there is a medical issue (avulsued nail, etc.).
>
> >
> While I'd have to go with them on that you should know that AVAR also
> supports the imposition of a complete ban on all 'use' of non-human
> animals for any purpose whatsoever (food, fiber, recreation, research,
> etc.).
Not true. Read their Position, Philosophy and Mission statements.
For example, what they say about the use of food/fiber animals is
this:
"The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights opposes *in
principle* the raising of nonhuman animals for food and fiber. We
recognize, however, that conversion to a purely plant-based diet and
life-style is unlikely in the foreseeable future for most people.
Until and if that time comes, we strongly advocate more humane means
of raising nonhuman animals for human consumption."
"Opposing in principle", and "advocating the humane use" is much
different than supporting "the imposition of a complete ban...", which
is what you stated. Seems to me that they are taking a practical,
balanced approach to minimizing the suffering of animals used by
humans.
Furthermore, not all people see the banning of the use of animals by
humans as a bad thing.
-L.
Lyn
> Lyn wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > The Bush Baby is evil.
>
> >
> That's a bit extreme.
I hardly think so.
> It may be naive, easily manipulated, in some
> matters callous and out of touch with the lives of average people. But
> Evil? Sorry, don't see it.
>
> > Mother Theresa was not.
>
> >
> What would you call someone who consistently spoke out against
> contraception in a nation staggering under horrendous overpopulation?
>
> There is great hazard in trying to apply absolute labels to human beings.
Clearly ED, your evil is not my evil...
-L.
Natalie
Ooo, me too! Dib dib dib :p
Natalie
Bob Brenchley.
Nothing can make the first two morally right. There are things that
can make the last three morally wrong.
--
Bob.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
we hear you talk.