Cat declawing

[Sommerswerd]

petkeeping is such a difficult topic. having an outdoor cat is nice for the cat, but devastating for any wildlife around it. de-clawing a cat is elaborate torture, but many USAians apparently see it as either a necessity or not as a cruelty.

the whole idea of supporting an industry that breeds (puts actual beings into existance, think about that for a sec)millions of animals just so we can have a companion whenever we like, is in and of itself kinda screwed up the longer you think about it.

Not to mention what we do to cows and chickens... chop of their heads, skin them, and boil them in oil and or burn them over an open fire... lobsters we boil them alive, rip them apart and devour their innards...

I've never have a cat and I wouldn't consider declawing if I did... the idea of being declawed gives me shivers down my spine... although I will admit that not having owned a cat, I have no understanding whatsoever about the reasons/circumstances that make people want their cats declawed. That being said... the moralizing/virtue signaling over cat declawing is a little puzzling at times, given the far worse treatment we inflict on other animals, including cats.

I agree that the treatment of animals is a difficult topic. I won't set foot on Sea World, or the Circus, but I still take my kids to the zoo/aquarium.

 

[sherbz]

I have no problem with eating animals - and by extension the slaughter of them. However, I do expect it to be done humanely. There are laws that should be followed. Thats why i veer away from most mass produced meat - we get most of ours from a local butcher. I also dont think battery farming hens is too long for this world.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So after doing a bit of reading i discovered that declawing a cat is fairly common in America. And recently certain states have moved to ban the practice:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/...wFKIjR9-vPvYIJbJ3BMhJlB2C7yWR1_MGzL1_P7VbzBww

I can say that i have never knowingly met anyone, cat or otherwise, where this practice is applied (in the UK). And can i also say that i find this practice morally abhorrent - even though i am not usually one for fawning over cute little kitties (although i do love and own cats). Its like forcefully removing all the fingers from your pet - its not their nails you are removing - its their fingers. Is there anyone willing to justify this practice? To me thats a bit like trying to justify FGM. And i wanted to know if my moral compass was out of whack.

Your moral compass is working perfectly.

Declawing is what they do to a lot of the animals that you see in TV shows and movies, btw. Yes, even the wild animals. Off-camera, some of them go nuts, since they can't groom themselves properly, they can't feel properly, and some have to be put down because the vet didn't get all the fragments of claw and the cat (generic term) gets a massive infection in its paw. By that time the animal can't walk properly, and some basically drag themselves around.

I'd go with these snazzy attachments instead

That is disgusting. It's inviting a case of poisoning, not to mention choking if the cat bites them off and swallows them.

Just trim the claws regularly, and everything will be fine.

People who do this to their cats would be better off buying a stuffed animal. They obviously don't want a cat, but something cute and fluffy. Cats are neither. Cats are parasitic sociopathic murderers. Even their motions resemble the ones of the girl from the Ring. And that's a scientific fact. Ask any felinologist.

As CFC's resident cat lady, I call baloney on that.

Some cats, sure. All cats? Nope.

petkeeping is such a difficult topic. having an outdoor cat is nice for the cat, but devastating for any wildlife around it. de-clawing a cat is elaborate torture, but many USAians apparently see it as either a necessity or not as a cruelty.

the whole idea of supporting an industry that breeds (puts actual beings into existance, think about that for a sec)millions of animals just so we can have a companion whenever we like, is in and of itself kinda screwed up the longer you think about it.

Some people don't get them for companionship. Some are service animals (who are NOT pets). Sadly, some are merely status symbols that have to be fed, watered, and groomed. Their only function is to win ribbons or prompt others to be envious.

I have 2 rehomed cats. And to my knowledge cats are rarely bred - certainly not like dogs. Plus i think they like living with us - we have a shared history stretching back around 4,000 years or so.

Kitten mills are a thing, just like puppy mills. I can spot a kitten mill easily on Kijiji, and have reported a few. There was one clueless woman who was advertising kittens who were barely 5 weeks old.

Well, that's the age my Siamese kitten was when I first got her, but fortunately she had been weaned early, and was able to handle canned cat food with no problem. Other kittens prefer to nurse for another 2-3 weeks.

I emailed the woman and told her she was offering these kittens several weeks too early, and they still needed their mother. Not to mention the fact that no reputable vet will administer distemper/rabies shots to a kitten younger than 8 weeks.

Maddy was 7 weeks when I got her, so I had to wait a week to take her to the vet. He estimated her birthday at June 25, 2007. She's going to be 12 this year, and when you compare the rate at which cats age to the rate at which humans age, she's actually older than I am.

I also agree with this, in fact if animals had some kind of preference (I'm not sure they do) then I'd conclude that most animals would rather live in comfort and belly-rub heaven than be faced with constant threat and hunger in the wild. That's not really what I was getting at. For example I think Valka's cat must be one of the happiest animals on the planet (again, if that's even a thing, I don't think so).

As I read this thread, I had an overwhelming feeling of "I should really do something nice for Maddy" and so I gave her some cat milk.

I would like to think she's one of the happiest animals on the planet; I do my best for her, and it hasn't always been easy.

It's a case of picking the important battles. She's got the run of most of the apartment (not the bathroom), is not allowed outside, or up on the countertops. I had to make an exception for tables due to my surgeries - I wasn't allowed to bend over for a significant period of time post-op, so I started feeding her on one of the tables (her obvious confusion actually pleased me - she had been so well-trained over the years that it was evident that she was thinking, "waitaminute, I'm not allowed up here, wtf is going on?").


As for the reasons for declawing (frivolous in my view, given the fact that it's mutilation), some people are just so attached to their couch, chairs, or carpets, that it never occurs to them that cats can be trained to scratch on other things (Maddy prefers cardboard boxes), and claw-clipping is actually easy. I can do it, even though my close-up vision is still not great (mind you, I've had decades of experience and am very comfortable with doing this even with cats that aren't mine - I clipped my neighbor's kitten's claws one night when he knocked on the door to ask how to do it).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Have had about half a dozen family cats over the years and there has never been a need cut their nails at all. In what circumstances is that ever required?

 

[Snerk]

Have had about half a dozen family cats over the years and there has never been a need cut their nails at all. In what circumstances is that ever required?

My previous cat got rather long claws when she got old and didn't use them much any longer. So I trimmed them occasionally. Though I can't say for sure that she minded the long claws. But it looked a bit off.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Have had about half a dozen family cats over the years and there has never been a need cut their nails at all. In what circumstances is that ever required?

nice, didn't expect you to be a cat person. it's beautiful how people can always surprise ya.

 

[Peuri]

in which way have we uplifted them, and how do we even begin to assess whether the animals in question feel "uplifted" or not?

I meant strictly in the sense of their quantity thanks to domestication. Uplift was probably an obtuse choice of words.

there are more animals experiencing suffering than ever before on earth.

Quotation needed.

even those that are not in captivity suffer through us, and even those that don't suffer through us simply suffer as any semi-conscious being does. I don't see a single thing good about there being more animals alive.

Yeah, the argument that we should just end all life on this planet in order to avoid suffering is very tempting, if avoiding suffering is the ultimate goal.

there is also the huge problem with biodiversity and the disgusting fact that we're on our way to obliterate almost all of the diversity in ANY captive species, and even in most grown plants. the fact that these living beings are bred and selected only in terms of their economic gain means that every species that isn't deemed "optimal" by capitalism will inevitably die.

I agree, but I don't see why you would bring capitalism into this. How would things be any different under communism or feodalism? The central problem is that there are too many people needing to be fed, not necessarily capitalism as an economic system.

just an example: there are over 1000 edible kinds of bananas. insane variety. however 99% of all bananas that are exported are cavendish bananas. almost 50% of all bananas produced in the entire world are. now it turns out when you have extremely low biodiversity in your crops it is very susceptible to illness, like an overbred dog. now half the global bananas supply is threatened by a fungus (a strain of the fungus Fusarium oxysporum cubense that lives in the soil, is impervious to pesticides, and kills banana plants by choking them of water and nutrients.) and many people have lost everything they had because their plantations died down. only the multinationals could keep alive.

Sad.

This I will agree with completely, as an evolutionary strategy it was very effective for the very few species we did end up adopting.

I also agree with this, in fact if animals had some kind of preference (I'm not sure they do) then I'd conclude that most animals would rather live in comfort and belly-rub heaven than be faced with constant threat and hunger in the wild. That's not really what I was getting at. For example I think Valka's cat must be one of the happiest animals on the planet (again, if that's even a thing, I don't think so).

Yup. Although judging by Valka's post their cat isn't being a sociopathic murdered, so the cats true nature must be suppressed, so I'm unsure as to the cats happiness. (Sorry... JK. I'm sure they are very happy cats. )

what I was getting at is not the pets POV, but the humans. imagine a couple so bored with their lives, they decide to have kids just to be entertained, to have something going on, to not be so lonely anymore. I don't care about whether it works out or not, I care about the intentions, and they are clearly wrong. you shouldn't have a kid because you're bored with yourself and have nothing going on, you should have a kid because you want to raise a kid. well.

I don't know... I'm bored. My wife is bored. Having people seems like something people do. Life is a joke anyway.

but most often the point of the pet is not to grow as a person while you're raising it, to provide it with the best life possible, to secure a better future for the world, to pass down what you've learned, to help continue the species, to produce a working member of society, or any other (semi) legitimate reasons as to why we have children: It's often because you're feeling kinda lonely and you want company. or because having a dog might make you more active. or because you think the chihuahua looks really cute with your new bag. they are almost exclusively selfish reasons.

Are we talking about kids or pets here, because I tried to teach my dog to make an omelette, passing down my skills, but all she did was crack the eggs and lick the yoke off the floor.

also, just on a side note, too, a more pragmatic comment: don't buy pets. just get them from a shelter. or from craigslist. or from someone whose animal surprisingly have birth. the whole idea of raising even more sentient beings in order to stuff them into cages until someone decides to buy them, while others already alive are starving for any kind of attention and love, is just horrible.

It's illegal to sell large pets in pet stores here. Bought our dog from a breeder.

sorry if I come off as aggressive or belligerent or something, I'm really not. I'm actually really thankful for giving me this opportunity to rant

No problem. I'm not very invested in these ideas anyway. Just shooting from the hip.

 

[rah]

Clipping their nails is not a sure fire way to save your furniture or carpets.
As soon as we trim ours, they're looking for a place to sharpen them back up. They usually use the carpet covered box I made for that purpose or one of the scratching poles we put out. But they're not totally limited to those. If you have cats, you have to expect a little of that. Or you have the best trained cats on the planet.
I would never consider declawing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Declawing is barbaric and I don't like tail and ear docking on dogs either. That has even less justification as it's purely cosmetic and serves no other purpose in non-working dogs. And I doubt there are too many people who use dachshunds to hunt gophers in narrow holes and dock their tails to make them easier to grab out of the hole. But I don't think the tail and ear docking are as destructive as de-clawing.

Some people do remove dew claws on dogs for legitimate reasons. They are useless appendages that often catch in underbrush and rip off in a traumatic and painful fashion so some people pre-emptively remove those. They don't walk on the dew claws so it's not the same as declawing a cat.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Although judging by Valka's post their cat isn't being a sociopathic murdered

It depends on the pov of the lifeform being killed. Given all the people who have died of malaria and other mosquito-borne viruses, mosquitoes are sociopathic murderers.

Maddy has never killed a bird or mouse. That's not to say she wouldn't, given the opportunity and know-how (she was never taught to hunt); going by how upset she gets at the pigeons outside, she'd gladly take them on, and if she killed any, I'd praise her profusely. But I'm never going to give her the opportunity to even try, considering how dangerous it is here for cats outside. Last year a cat died after falling from a 6th floor balcony; the manager thinks it was trying to grab at one of the pigeons, lost its balance, and fell.

No, cats do not always land on their feet and walk away.

 

[sherbz]

It depends on the pov of the lifeform being killed. Given all the people who have died of malaria and other mosquito-borne viruses, mosquitoes are sociopathic murderers.

Maddy has never killed a bird or mouse. That's not to say she wouldn't, given the opportunity and know-how (she was never taught to hunt); going by how upset she gets at the pigeons outside, she'd gladly take them on, and if she killed any, I'd praise her profusely. But I'm never going to give her the opportunity to even try, considering how dangerous it is here for cats outside. Last year a cat died after falling from a 6th floor balcony; the manager thinks it was trying to grab at one of the pigeons, lost its balance, and fell.

No, cats do not always land on their feet and walk away.

Did you know that a cat has been known to fall out of the 55th floor of a block of flats and live to tell the tale? Im not suggesting it ass a life choice, but felines do have a significant proclivity toward height. I think, in the survey i read, 90% of cats that fell from floors 10 and below survived. And the lucky one that survived 55 did so with merely a punctured lung and fractured leg.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Did you know that a cat has been known to fall out of the 55th floor of a block of flats and live to tell the tale? Im not suggesting it ass a life choice, but felines do have a significant proclivity toward height. I think, in the survey i read, 90% of cats that fell from floors 10 and below survived. And the lucky one that survived 55 did so with merely a punctured lung and fractured leg.

Does that negate the FACT of what I just related about the unfortunate cat in my building?

This is a very cat-friendly building; the manager lives here, and he has a cat. Since he would have had to deal with the cat who fell, I have no reason to doubt his word.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

My cat does not touch the furniture, though he is on his third scratching post. I stopped cutting his nails when he was treed by a coyote last year. If he hadn't been due for a trim, he would have been a goner.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Quotation needed.

All sentient life forms suffer to some degree. Many animals are sentient. Having more sentient animals means having more suffering around. This same phenomenon is true for humans as well. Note that I'm not trying to cast a value judgement, this is just a statement of fact. There are also more animals experienced "joy" than ever before on earth, same deal.

Yeah, the argument that we should just end all life on this planet in order to avoid suffering is very tempting, if avoiding suffering is the ultimate goal.

No, it really isn't though. Most life on this planet is actually non-sentient, like Bacteria and Funghi. If you made your argument about sentient life then it'd be true, I suppose.

I agree, but I don't see why you would bring capitalism into this. How would things be any different under communism or feodalism? The central problem is that there are too many people needing to be fed, not necessarily capitalism as an economic system.

Capitalism is the number one driving engine behind animal cruelty, mass breeding & slaughter, the destruction of biodiversity, of natural habitat, and it is also the main driving force between the pet industry.

You make the argument: Well, humans gotta eat. But you're ignoring the whole historical evolution. Consider this:

We could easily supply the entire world with grains. If we ate mainly grains: Pasta, Rice, Bread.. And no/very little meat, we could easily supply the entire world with food. The same goes for legumes probably, like lentils or beans. Hell, the same even goes for starchy vegetables, like Potatoes. We could feed the entire world population 10x over, but that is not what is happening, is it? Instead we're throwing lots of food away because it means nothing to us and is so readily available. I don't want to put communisms in a good light, but you sure as hell never saw anyone throw away food in the Soviet Union. The same goes for feudalism. Also, interestingly enough, both systems where people consumed far less meat and far more grain/vege staples. We also massively overproduce certain foods, which the state then often buys. This is how government cheese was created, if you ever wanted to know. Cow herders would just be making 3x the milk needed, because they knew for a fact that they'd be able to sell it. I'm not proposing we go towards communism or any other ism, that's not the point at all. The point is that these shortcomings are inherent to capitalism, they're a product of the capitalist system and not (exclusively) the fault of individual consumers. The reason we eat so much meat is because its cheap and we're entirely reduced from the animals suffering. The meat industry does its part so that we may never see what goes on behind closed doors, the advertising genius figured out entirely removing a chicken breasts from its body and packaging it nicely made the idea of murder to much more distant. We're all compliant.

I don't know... I'm bored. My wife is bored. Having people seems like something people do. Life is a joke anyway.

If you're talking about morality from a "life is a joke anyway" point of view then the discussion is kind of meaningless. I do agree that life is inherently meaningless, but that statement in- and of itself really doesn't mean much to me. everything is inherently meaningless, but meaning can be found anywhere. I don't hate on people for having kids because they're bored. It's a destructive thing to do, but whatever, your bodies belong to you

And it is "something people do", but that doesn't justify it, that doesn't take away the selfish motive. If I'll ever have kids it will be out of entirely selfish motives as well. But I try to remain conscious of that, instead of, like so many parents, spinning my own narrative to justify myself having kids.

 

[Peuri]

All sentient life forms suffer to some degree. Many animals are sentient. Having more sentient animals means having more suffering around. This same phenomenon is true for humans as well. Note that I'm not trying to cast a value judgement, this is just a statement of fact. There are also more animals experienced "joy" than ever before on earth, same deal.

So the reason there are more beings suffering at the moment is that there is more sentient suffering biomass at the moment? Is that true? Is there more sentient biomass at the moment when compared to any moment in the past?

No, it really isn't though. Most life on this planet is actually non-sentient, like Bacteria and Funghi. If you made your argument about sentient life then it'd be true, I suppose.

Ok, just destroy all sentient life then. But just to be sure we should also destroy all non-sentient life, because eventually out of that non-sentient biomass sentient beings could evolve, and as such their suffering would have been caused by our negligence.

Capitalism is the number one driving engine behind animal cruelty, mass breeding & slaughter, the destruction of biodiversity, of natural habitat, and it is also the main driving force between the pet industry.

You make the argument: Well, humans gotta eat. But you're ignoring the whole historical evolution. Consider this:

We could easily supply the entire world with grains. If we ate mainly grains: Pasta, Rice, Bread.. And no/very little meat, we could easily supply the entire world with food. The same goes for legumes probably, like lentils or beans. Hell, the same even goes for starchy vegetables, like Potatoes. We could feed the entire world population 10x over, but that is not what is happening, is it? Instead we're throwing lots of food away because it means nothing to us and is so readily available. I don't want to put communisms in a good light, but you sure as hell never saw anyone throw away food in the Soviet Union. The same goes for feudalism. Also, interestingly enough, both systems where people consumed far less meat and far more grain/vege staples. We also massively overproduce certain foods, which the state then often buys. This is how government cheese was created, if you ever wanted to know. Cow herders would just be making 3x the milk needed, because they knew for a fact that they'd be able to sell it. I'm not proposing we go towards communism or any other ism, that's not the point at all. The point is that these shortcomings are inherent to capitalism, they're a product of the capitalist system and not (exclusively) the fault of individual consumers. The reason we eat so much meat is because its cheap and we're entirely reduced from the animals suffering. The meat industry does its part so that we may never see what goes on behind closed doors, the advertising genius figured out entirely removing a chicken breasts from its body and packaging it nicely made the idea of murder to much more distant. We're all compliant.

Ok, I get it now. So the problem with capitalism is that it caters too well to people's desires to eat delicious food/high status food, and is too good at producing said outcome, but also fails to produce products at the right time causing spoilage. People under Soviet communism had the same desires, their desires just went unfulfilled. I'd rather have the present situation than chronic shortages and the occasional famine. Regarding government subsidies, a free market fundamentalist would say that that's not capitalism at all.

I agree that killing animals is a nasty business. It's quite interesting to study ancient beliefs, because most had some sort of cult regarding appeasement of animal spirits. A manifestation of quilty consciousness, I guess. But... They're just so darned tasty... Damn our evolutionary history as omnivores.

But yes, there needs to be global taxes on negative externalities, because they are distorting all markets at the moment causing all sorts of problems, climate change being the most obvious one.

If you're talking about morality from a "life is a joke anyway" point of view then the discussion is kind of meaningless. I do agree that life is inherently meaningless, but that statement in- and of itself really doesn't mean much to me. everything is inherently meaningless, but meaning can be found anywhere. I don't hate on people for having kids because they're bored. It's a destructive thing to do, but whatever, your bodies belong to you

Yeah, sorry about that. I've been descending into disgusting nihilism of late. It's quite disconcerting. Anyway, it seems that having children brings a lot of the feeling of meaningfulness into people's lives.

And it is "something people do", but that doesn't justify it, that doesn't take away the selfish motive. If I'll ever have kids it will be out of entirely selfish motives as well. But I try to remain conscious of that, instead of, like so many parents, spinning my own narrative to justify myself having kids.

Yeah, I used to oppose having children vehemently. I used to think that the human species is a plague on this planet because we are causing the sort of things you described. But as I'm moving towards 30, there is this nagging feeling of perpetual meaninglessness.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Ok, just destroy all sentient life then. But just to be sure we should also destroy all non-sentient life, because eventually out of that non-sentient biomass sentient beings could evolve, and as such their suffering would have been caused by our negligence.



Yeah, I used to oppose having children vehemently. I used to think that the human species is a plague on this planet because we are causing the sort of things you described. But as I'm moving towards 30, there is this nagging feeling of perpetual meaninglessness.

As I already stated, the conclusion to the idea "all sentient life is suffering" (which is true) is not to end all sentient life, that's just sloppy thinking. it is to take responsibility w/r/t having kids, forcing animals to have sex, and so forth. the takeaway is that life should not be created, nor ended, out of a whim or desire.

interestingly enough I had a very different development than you did. for me the existential crises (there was more than 1) came a lot earlier, and my misanthropy was always latent. it's not just environmentalism though, that's just a small part of it. I think humans are a disgusting species in many regards for me what comes with 30 now is not misanthropy nor existentialism, but rather a kind of defeatism or disillusion that my previous way of life (taoistic in a sense, just living for experience, being entirely in the moment, doing what I loved doing) is absolutely imcompatible with capitalism and the adult world, and that I will have to optimize myself, my mind, my body and my way of life if I ever want to be competitive (aka survive..). and that really sucks. we are now, ironally, with maximum radical freedom, more formed by our surroundings than ever before.

I like examples, so one small example. I am in a reddit community with some YouTubers. all the questions are about: how do I get people to like me, how do I get more views, how do I trend, what can I improve..and so forth. it seems that nowadays many YouTubers don't have a channel because they have something to say, or because they love films/video, but rather because they want to be YouTubers. and they don't produce the kind of content they like, or want to see, or want to produce, but they do (and are specifically told to do) exactly only that which the viewer likes. everything has to adhere to a standard: you need an intro, only a few seconds long. thumbnails have to look like this. the audio volume needs to be like this. the title needs to be phrased like that. otherwise the algorhythm won't pick it up. see where I am getting at? not conforming essentially dooms you to obscurity, but conforming on the other hand means what you produce is boring, samey, formulaic, and entirely reduced from any artistic vision or freedom. that is how I feel about the human self in late capitalism. compliance to the unwritten rules (be selfish, be reckless, be opportunistic, be manipulative, put financial gain over everything, instrumentalize your relations, be competitive..) will get you ahead, not complying with the unwritten rules will get you either welfare or death, if you're not lucky enough to be born into a first world country. of course some people end up doing what they love, or loving what they do. and that's great. but it's hardly the path for financial stability for most people. most people end up doing that which lets them survive and prosper, or rather they survive and comply.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

nice, didn't expect you to be a cat person. it's beautiful how people can always surprise ya.

Did you imagine I enjoy going on baby seal clubbing expeditions?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Did you imagine I enjoy going on baby seal clubbing expeditions?

I would have firmly put you in the dog camp, potentially even in the big dog camp. About a labrador in size. Or maybe a collie. One you do outdoor activities with, like hiking. You ever hike?

 

[Yeekim]

I've been declawed. As a person who has been declawed, I can say with certainty that the pain of it never really stops. You get used to it. But the pain never really stops. I was declawed in 1984. It is now 2019. The pain never really stops.

It's cruel to do this to an animal.

I lost a digit of an index finger a couple years ago, and while the stump was kind of tender for a year or two, it does not feel any different any more.

That said, I would never consider mutilating my pets like this.
Goes for ears and tails of dogs too.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I would have firmly put you in the dog camp, potentially even in the big dog camp. About a labrador in size. Or maybe a collie. One you do outdoor activities with, like hiking. You ever hike?

Well... I've walked around in non-urban environments. Sometimes they have an upward gradient. Wouldn't claim much more than that though. Never owned a dog.