Need opinions about declawing

52 views
Skip to first unread message

Herman-Munster

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 3:00:52 PM6/25/02
to
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,
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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 4:07:07 PM6/25/02
to
Sorry you won't find much agreement with your wife here. Have you tried
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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 4:08:12 PM6/25/02
to
another thing, how *consistant* have you been with the training. That IS the
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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 4:09:26 PM6/25/02
to

"Herman-Munster" <cants...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:E53S8.318783$cQ3.17775@sccrnsc01...
JMO, don't declaw! I made that mistake 1 time. Never again, I had one cat
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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 7:06:22 PM6/25/02
to
I agree, told the wife there'd be no surgery....Oh well she'll have to get
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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 7:24:58 PM6/25/02
to
In article <E53S8.318783$cQ3.17775@sccrnsc01>, "Herman-Munster"
<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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 7:32:12 PM6/25/02
to

"Herman-Munster" <cants...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:E53S8.318783$cQ3.17775@sccrnsc01...


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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 8:49:58 PM6/25/02
to
"Herman-Munster" <cants...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<E53S8.318783$cQ3.17775@sccrnsc01>...

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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 8:56:03 PM6/25/02
to

"Herman-Munster" <cants...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:OH6S8.310309$352.32034@sccrnsc02...

> 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

unread,
Jun 25, 2002, 10:25:29 PM6/25/02
to

"Herman-Munster" <cants...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:E53S8.318783$cQ3.17775@sccrnsc01...

A piece of furniture vs. a member of the family? Is there really an issue
here?


MsJuniper

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:31:54 AM6/26/02
to
Speaking from a highly *practical* standpoint, I recognize that in order to
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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:35:22 AM6/26/02
to
re tendonectomy.

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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 11:06:34 AM6/26/02
to
>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".

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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 11:15:55 AM6/26/02
to
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.

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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:04:34 PM6/26/02
to

"Herman-Munster" <cants...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:OH6S8.310309$352.32034@sccrnsc02...

> 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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:55:43 PM6/26/02
to

"Sherry " <srid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020626110634...@mb-ml.aol.com...
Well put Sherry & All,
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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:24:38 PM6/26/02
to

"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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 12:32:01 PM6/26/02
to

"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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 1:36:17 PM6/26/02
to
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:24:49 PM6/26/02
to
"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...

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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:28:47 PM6/26/02
to
srid...@aol.com (Sherry ) wrote in message news:<20020626133617...@mb-mp.aol.com>...


People who cannot live with the claws shouldn't have cats. It really
is that simple.

-L.

Lyn

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:31:52 PM6/26/02
to
srid...@aol.com (Sherry ) wrote in message news:<20020626133617...@mb-mp.aol.com>...
<snip>

>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

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 10:19:27 PM6/26/02
to

"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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 1:03:01 AM6/27/02
to

"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.
>
> 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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 8:02:36 AM6/27/02
to
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.

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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 8:15:43 AM6/27/02
to
Missed the point! We were asked about opinions & I indicated out that the
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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 10:01:22 AM6/27/02
to

"MsJuniper" <msju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:abDS8.4936$ZM3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> 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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 10:29:43 AM6/27/02
to
you're a vegan or buddist ? - I'm presuming because you sound like someone
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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 11:49:31 AM6/27/02
to
[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. 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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 11:49:54 AM6/27/02
to
[MsJuniper]
[Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:29:43 -0400]

:you're a vegan or buddist ?

*cackle*

PERFECT response!!!!!!

Natalie

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 3:03:07 PM6/26/02
to
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:06:22 GMT, "Herman-Munster"
<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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 10:58:21 AM6/27/02
to
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:02:36 -0400, "MsJuniper"
<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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 2:45:12 PM6/27/02
to

"MsJuniper" <msju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:abDS8.4936$ZM3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 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.

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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 2:51:52 PM6/27/02
to

"MsJuniper" <msju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6lFS8.4989$ZM3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

<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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 3:47:30 PM6/27/02
to
you know what?:

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.

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 4:47:20 PM6/27/02
to
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.

>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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 6:06:10 PM6/27/02
to
[Bob Brenchley.]
[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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 7:45:14 PM6/27/02
to
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.
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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 7:48:11 PM6/27/02
to
Let's hope self righteousness isn't contagious.
Susan Ravan

Sherry

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 10:54:39 PM6/27/02
to
>Let's hope self righteousness isn't contagious.
>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

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 10:56:41 PM6/27/02
to

"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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 4:22:07 AM6/28/02
to
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:45:14 -0400, Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com>
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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 5:25:17 PM6/28/02
to
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, 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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 5:28:01 PM6/28/02
to
"Patch" <d.guipag...@LOLntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<ZbJS8.3375$l6.11...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 5:39:56 PM6/28/02
to
Bryan S. Slick <br...@slick-family.not> wrote in message news:<MPG.1784fe13d...@reten.newsgroups.st>...

> [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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 5:44:19 PM6/28/02
to
Susan Ravan <sra...@ellijay.com> wrote in message news:<3D1BA43B...@ellijay.com>...

> 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.

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 4:46:15 PM6/28/02
to
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?

> 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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 5:57:35 PM6/28/02
to
"MsJuniper" <msju...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0%JS8.5153$ZM3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...

> 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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 8:27:15 PM6/28/02
to
Warning: the following contains descriptions of animal cruelty. And it's
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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 8:31:17 PM6/28/02
to

"Bryan S. Slick" <br...@slick-family.not> wrote in message
news:MPG.1784fe2aa...@reten.newsgroups.st...

> [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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 8:40:58 PM6/28/02
to

"Susan Ravan" <sra...@ellijay.com> wrote in message
news:3D1BA43B...@ellijay.com...
> Let's hope self righteousness isn't contagious.
> 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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 8:36:54 PM6/28/02
to

"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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 8:47:27 PM6/28/02
to
"Schroedinger's Cat" <schroe...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
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.
>
It sure wasn't, it was eloquently stated.

> ########################################################
<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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 8:53:33 PM6/28/02
to

"Schroedinger's Cat" <schroe...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d1d01c2$0$21005$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...


You have summed me up perfectly. This is *exactly* how I feel about it.

Patch

Brendan Carson and Catherine Gunson

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 9:15:15 PM6/28/02
to
BTW, the preceding was posted by Brendan Carson, but we accidentally used my
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

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 10:10:15 PM6/28/02
to
>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

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

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 10:59:23 PM6/29/02
to
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

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 11:02:23 PM6/29/02
to
Cite the documentation, please.

Susan Ravan

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 11:00:48 PM6/29/02
to
Sorry, bad argument. I have three declawed cats, all are 12 years old.
Now biting, peeing problems.
Susan Ravan

Susan Ravan

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 11:01:26 PM6/29/02
to
Shades of PETA

Susan Ravan

unread,
Jun 29, 2002, 11:38:53 PM6/29/02