[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by PB2K 

it\s like pulling the teeth from your dog. the animal will be very stressed

None of my cats have died of starvation yet. And It is bad to declaw a cat in mid-life. only when they are young. And they are sedated when this happens.

[Peter]

"Do you want the cat to conform to you or do you want to conform to the cat?"
what he said.

[hart]

I'm not going to bother to read these 3 pages. As far as I'm concerned there's no debate.

declawing is abuse. Period. If you think it's a good idea then go have your own fingers amputated from the first joint down.

If you as a cat owner can not find a way to live with a cat without declawing take it back to a shelter.

If you need help figuring out what to do with a scratching cat your local shelter or vet will be happy to give you help and info rather than having to take the cat in later when you get rid of it.

I have spent a lot of time in shelters over the last year or two and the number of declawed cats who subsequently get dumped by their owners is heartbreaking. Then you have a cat who can't defend itself and can't go outside which, however you feel about outdoor cats, greatly limits its chance of ever being adopted. In a regular shelter that means death, in a no-kill shelter that means life in a cage.

Declawing creates additional behavior problems that will end up being more difficult to cure and then there's no going back and pasting the claws back on.

I cannot imagine wanting to do such a horrible thing to someone I love.

DON'T DO IT!!

[Annette310]

Originally Posted by hart 

I'm not going to bother to read these 3 pages. As far as I'm concerned there's no debate.

declawing is abuse. Period. If you think it's a good idea then go have your own fingers amputated from the first joint down.

If you as a cat owner can not find a way to live with a cat without declawing take it back to a shelter.

If you need help figuring out what to do with a scratching cat your local shelter or vet will be happy to give you help and info rather than having to take the cat in later when you get rid of it.

I have spent a lot of time in shelters over the last year or two and the number of declawed cats who subsequently get dumped by their owners is heartbreaking. Then you have a cat who can't defend itself and can't go outside which, however you feel about outdoor cats, greatly limits its chance of ever being adopted. In a regular shelter that means death, in a no-kill shelter that means life in a cage.

Declawing creates additional behavior problems that will end up being more difficult to cure and then there's no going back and pasting the claws back on.

I cannot imagine wanting to do such a horrible thing to someone I love.

DON'T DO IT!!

Well said! I also volunteer at my local shelter and it is very sad to see cats being brought in because of the behavior problems that came after the declaw. It breaks my heart

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I find the complete hypocrisy in this thread very, very amusing.

I assume all you people are vegetarians, right? For sure. I mean, we certainly don't want animals conforming to us, or decide what happens to an animal's body. Likewise, I'm sure all of you people are concerned over your environmental impact, and do your best to minimize that impact – after all, human activities are certainly causing the highest extinction rates ever seen in recordable history!

The fact that a large number of you don't do or act in this way just shows the pure emotionality of the argument. It's a pet, people, and it has been specifically bred for thousands of years to be a toy for human enjoyment. I howl in amusement when people say "a cat is a predator! It's nature!" Well jeez, really there genius? It's a mammal that eats other living things? Well **** me in the ass with a flamethrower!



greg

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well **** me in the ass with a flamethrower!

Now don't go quoting the bible just to make your point.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I find the complete hypocrisy in this thread very, very amusing.
...
The fact that a large number of you don't do or act in this way just shows the pure emotionality of the argument. It's a pet, people, and it has been specifically bred for thousands of years to be a toy for human enjoyment. I howl in amusement when people say "a cat is a predator! It's nature!" Well jeez, really there genius? It's a mammal that eats other living things? Well **** me in the ass with a flamethrower!

While I basically agree with you, just a minor quibble with your argument: the domesticated animals we keep were not bred to be "[toys] for human enjoyment". They were bred to be useful. All the different breeds of dogs, with a few exceptions, were selectively bred to do particular jobs well, for example catching rats (terriers), fetching (but not eating) the kill from a hunt (retrievers), or herding animals (shepherds). Dogs were working animals, just like horses. Now that the need for working dogs is minimal, we keep them as pets, and get mad at them when they exhibit the behavior their breed was bred to do!

Similarly, people kept cats as predators, mostly to catch mice and other vermin. The fact that this use didn't necessitate much human interaction explains why cats are much more independent than dogs (that and the fact that cats aren't pack animals).

I just saw a PBS show about dogs again, and one of the interesting points a dog expert made is that nobody has actually bred any dog to be a good pet. We still just keep working breeds as pets, rather than breeding the perfect apartment dog, the perfect family dog, etc.

tooki

[TETENAL]

What work was this bred for?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by hart 

I'm not going to bother to read these 3 pages.

Then I suppose you don't mind if I don't read the rest of your post?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

What work was this bred for?

Ahem:

Originally Posted by tooki 

... All the different breeds of dogs, with a few exceptions, were selectively bred to do particular jobs ...

The main exceptions are the toy dogs (a category that chihuahuas fall into), which were bred for royalty in ages gone by (because only royalty could afford to feed an animal that didn't do anything).

tooki

[climber]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

It's just plain wrong. If you can't tolerate your cat having claws, then you shouldn't have a cat. Give your cat to someone else.


I didn't think much of it until I saw a cat that had recently had it done. It's nasty and awful and should be outlawed.

Originally Posted by hart 

If you as a cat owner can not find a way to live with a cat without declawing take it back to a shelter.

Absolutely, it's much more humane to take them out back and kill them.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by tooki 

While I basically agree with you, just a minor quibble with your argument: the domesticated animals we keep were not bred to be "[toys] for human enjoyment". They were bred to be useful. All the different breeds of dogs, with a few exceptions, were selectively bred to do particular jobs well, for example catching rats (terriers), fetching (but not eating) the kill from a hunt (retrievers), or herding animals (shepherds). Dogs were working animals, just like horses. Now that the need for working dogs is minimal, we keep them as pets, and get mad at them when they exhibit the behavior their breed was bred to do!

Similarly, people kept cats as predators, mostly to catch mice and other vermin. The fact that this use didn't necessitate much human interaction explains why cats are much more independent than dogs (that and the fact that cats aren't pack animals).

I just saw a PBS show about dogs again, and one of the interesting points a dog expert made is that nobody has actually bred any dog to be a good pet. We still just keep working breeds as pets, rather than breeding the perfect apartment dog, the perfect family dog, etc.

tooki

Touché to some extent (although in past past century, I would say there's been less and less of a trend to breed dogs or cats as anything but pets in the modern world, unless for specific situations...but that's neither here nor there to either of our arguments).

Your note about cats not being pack animals (ie. having a solitary social structure) is another clue as to why they're more independent. In fact, there's no evidence that cats are more independent because they were "kept as predators;" there is more evidence that it's simply in the very nature of housecats not to be easily domesticated. (For example, cats and ferrets are the only domesticated territorial mammals, fact!) Jared Diamond gets into a little of the nature of human-domesticated [ie. selectively bred in captivity] animals in his book Guns, Germs and Steel – while I'm not a terribly big fan of his, it's certainly an interesting topic. His basic point concerning cats is that they were never kept to be in a herd, but as solitary hunters.

Either way, it's off-topic but interesting. Good call.

Anyways, that was just my loose change. People who scream about the "inhumane abuse" of declawing cats and the way it "affects them"....and eat meat regularly and don't give a rat's ass about their environmental footprint? You're concerned over your property - your chattel – because it's yours and you like it, that's all. Emotional reaction: don't hurt the pretty animal! It's pretty! Like baby seals!

*shrug*

greg

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

....and eat meat regularly and don't give a rat's ass about their environmental footprint? You're concerned over your property - your chattel – because it's yours and you like it, that's all. Emotional reaction: don't hurt the pretty animal! It's pretty! Like baby seals!

*shrug*

greg

No, the idea that we should be "concerned" or "sympathetic" with our FOOD is a wholly unnatural concept invented by neurotic, self-loathing people.

I agree that we are gluttonous and wasteful, but the idea that we shouldn't eat this or that because of some false sense of "humanity" is absurd.

As far as the "pretty animal" part, that certainly doesn't apply to me. I would have no problem eating ANY animal regardless of cuteness factor INCLUDING CATS, DOGS, HORSES etc…as long as it was palatable. It's just not done in this country and we have other options.

[vexborg]

Originally Posted by Sbtrfuge 

Cat people are obnoxious. OH NO NOT HURT MY LITTLE CAT! Instead I'll just line my entire apartment with cardboard and make it smell like a gigantic litter box! Oh he's so cute! It doesn't matter if he claws up everything and endangers small children and other animals, he's so cute!

Dog people are obnoxious. OH NO NOT HURT MY LITTLE DOG! Instead I'll just line my entire apartment with newspapers and make it smell like a gigantic dog toilet! Oh he's so cute! It doesn't matter if he chews up everything and endangers small children and other animals, he's so cute!

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Anyways, that was just my loose change. People who scream about the "inhumane abuse" of declawing cats and the way it "affects them"....and eat meat regularly and don't give a rat's ass about their environmental footprint? You're concerned over your property - your chattel – because it's yours and you like it, that's all. Emotional reaction: don't hurt the pretty animal! It's pretty! Like baby seals!

As a guy who regularly eats kangaroo I could care less about the "cute" factor when it comes to the usefulness of animals in food.

The difference lies in treating an animal that you are supposed to care for as an object that you can treat however you like as long as it doesn't inconvenience you. If you can't take the whole package, then don't. When I have kids (again - long story), I don't want their vocal chords cut just because I can't be bothered being woken up in the middle of the night. Mutilating a living being for your own convenience is just cruel. Period.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I hope you're not serious here.

If you can't figure out how to keep a squirrel out of the birdfeeder, then I feel the human race is quickly going downhill.

greg

Absolutely serious.

Anything that keeps the squirrels out ends up keeping the birds out too. And don't forget that even though the birds can conceivably fly to a place where the squirrel can't get, unless you have a bird feeder that can hover, the squirrel can climb whatever suspends it.

I heard about a couple of documentaries on it. The first documentary had the humans winning by developing a weight activated sort of cantilever thing. By the second documentary, the squirrels had beat this through teamwork. One squirrel would hang off the end while the other would steal the birdseed.

The humans retaliated with a battery operated jack-in-the box "scaresquirrel". Personally, I think this is cheating.

It is notable however that the only way the humans could beat the squirrels evolutionary "intelligence" to steal birdseed, was to play a different aspect of the squirrel's evolutionary "intelligence" (fear of things that jump out at them) against itself.

Ultimately, as generalists, even something with a brain the size of a pea can do better than us if we are trying "head-on" to beat a specific trait developed for survival.

[Sbtrfuge]

Originally Posted by vexborg 

Dog people are obnoxious. OH NO NOT HURT MY LITTLE DOG! Instead I'll just line my entire apartment with newspapers and make it smell like a gigantic dog toilet! Oh he's so cute! It doesn't matter if he chews up everything and endangers small children and other animals, he's so cute!

That was sarcasm Vex. I have a dog, and I have not lined my apartment with anything, nor have I changed my apartment at all. The dog conforms to ME, it does what I want, not what it wants.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Absolutely serious.

Anything that keeps the squirrels out ends up keeping the birds out too. And don't forget that even though the birds can conceivably fly to a place where the squirrel can't get, unless you have a bird feeder that can hover, the squirrel can climb whatever suspends it.

Ultimately, as generalists, even something with a brain the size of a pea can do better than us if we are trying "head-on" to beat a specific trait developed for survival.

Are you...serious?

I lived in Newfoundland, and we had red squirrels everywhere (literally...they'd chew through the rubber on the bottom of the garage door, get into the attic through vents on the top of the house...the list goes on).

I think it's because you're concerned with a suspended birdfeeder. However, this is the revolutionary method we invented.

Greg's How-To Guide For Keeping Squirrels Out of a Birdfeeder

1. Take metal pole.

2. Stick in ground in back yard.

3. Stick nice birdfeeder on top.

...it worked wonders, I swear.

The other thing our neighbours did was put a "cap" on the pole...you know, like what dogs wear when you don't want them nipping out stitches or something. Put right-side up on pole, and they can't get around it.

I've seen the exact same thing on suspended birdfeeders, but I don't personally know how it works. But if you hang the "cap" above the birdfeeder so that it extends out wider than it, the squirrel would somehow have to "swing" over the edge and propel himself inwards to get to it. I can't see how this would happen if the cap was smooth.

Any suggestions?

greg

[IceBreaker]

declaw away.

My mother's cat was declawed to protect the furniture ages ago and is just fine.

Incidently that cat now prefers to live outside the house and for almost a decade has not had any problems defending herself/catching mice etc.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

1. Take metal pole.

2. Stick in ground in back yard.

3. Stick nice birdfeeder on top.

...it worked wonders, I swear.

I think the issue may be that Newfie squirrels aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahaha...yeah, that one's too thin. They can just shinny up it. Ours was bigger so they couldn't get the grip like that.

Either way, a cap midway up that pole and that guy wouldn't be going anywhere.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hahaha...yeah, that one's too thin. They can just shinny up it. Ours was bigger so they couldn't get the grip like that.

Either way, a cap midway up that pole and that guy wouldn't be going anywhere.

greg

Sorry, I was just messin' with ya.

The documentary was in the UK, so I can imagine the 20' diameter circle you'd need around the pole isn't usually practical from a space standpoint in their tiny gardens.