Did you have your cat declawed?

[Chip_and_Dales_Girl]

Not just asking you - but using your statement to ask a question.

Is there anything in the middle of those two choices for anyone? Soft paws or even just taking the time to keep the claws trimmed up?

I think it depends on where someone lives too. Many apartment complexes or townhouses require a cat to be declawed in order to be able to keep them. I'm not sure if there is a way around that or not, though I know a close girlfriend of mine was not able to get around it and had her cat of 2 years declawed when they moved into their townhouse because she didn't want to give up her cat.

I should probably add that in my area you'd be hard pressed not to find this with any complex that allows pets. The only one in our area that does not is a low income complex.

 

[themarquis]

No, never.

Our boys do scratch our couch, and one of them claws the table a little bit, but we don't care. We dont' have anything really "nice" (and nor would I want to, as it would seem like a big waste of money to me, esp. if you had to reorganize your life around protecting the precious furniture!)

However ... it is possible to train a cat not to scratch furniture. There are also lots of cats who just never scratch furniture in the first place, like the cats I had growing up. They just weren't scratchers, except on their scratching posts.

I feel fine about people declawing a cat if it is the last option available to them and they would have to get rid of the cat.

Sadly, most people exercise declawing as their *first* option. When they get a cat or kitten, they send it to the vet to get the claws taken out as a *routine* procedure. They assume that cats *have to be* declawed, probably in much the same way as they *have to be* spayed or neutered. They are unaware of other options, like simply clipping the cats' claws or using nail caps or (gasp) training.

I think this kind of thinking is wrong, unenlightened, reflects the fact that people don't do their research, and results in much unnecessary pain and intentional crippling of cats.

 

[Sleepy]

We have with all our cats in the past, but with the new kitty, we may consider leaving the claws. I would never have all 4 done. One of my neighbors did this and all I could think of was how that poor kitty was able to scratch an itch.

 

[jennyl772003]

Never. Think is inhumane. Can't believe that vets even do it.

We keep her claws trimmed, provide her with plenty of scratching posts, and spray her with water when she would scratch furniture, which frankly, hardly ever even happened.

I feel that if you can't handle the possibility of scratching, don't get a cat.

 

[Judy from Boise]

Honestly I have lived with many cats who were de-clawed in front, and someone must of forgot to tell them they were crippled ! They had the run of the neighborhood and did just fine. I actually felt guilty because they were both such good hunters. They climbed everything in sight , and had very long and happy lives.

 

[Breezie]

Yep. She is declawed on her front two paws.

 

[Passions71203]

Yep I did it and I'd do it again. I thought it was better to declaw them and give them a good home to live in then to drop them off at the shelter where they'd probably be put to sleep.

I am sure that I will get flamed for this but I agree with you!
'Course ours was declawed when we got her so that we didn't have to spend the big $$ to get it done..
If she was not declawed when we got her, DH and I were planning on using soft paws at first and if that didn't work (Had problems getting them on her, etc) then we would get her declawed.
BTW..I think our local shelter gives the animals 2 weeks before they get put down.

 

[okeydokey]

I never have, but I think with the next one we will do the fronts. It's either that or we won't take one home from the shelter. We trim nails religiously and supply all kids of scratching posts. We've used the spray that is supposed to keep them away. Nothing works.

 

[BillSears]

Not just asking you - but using your statement to ask a question.

Is there anything in the middle of those two choices for anyone? Soft paws or even just taking the time to keep the claws trimmed up?

For me there wasn't much middle ground. I previously had 2 cats for 12 years that were not declawed. They never used a scratching post, I had never heard of or tried soft paws and they woudln't sit still for clipping. They tore apart all of of furniture, taking the couch ends down to the splintered wood underneath, in the end once they were gone I had to replace everything. My ex-wife gave my daughter a cat while she was spending the summer with her. Of course once school started back up and my DD came home the cat came with her. This cat started scratching and we tried various things. It got to the point where either the cat got it's front paws declawed or it was shipped back to California.

I feel that if you can't handle the possibility of scratching, don't get a cat.

As I explainded above, I didn't get a cat my ex-wife gave one to my DD. Sometimes we have no choice in the matter.

 

[uratoon]

Absolutely! Would do it again in a heartbeat!

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

crippled?

I can understand the anti-declawing argument, but if you have to resort to such distortions and exaggerations - you are just going to turn off more people than you get to side with you. The same goes for telling people they put their belongings/furniture above their beloved pets or telling them they should not be pet owners if they can't take the scratching.

I do believe it should only be done as a last resort when necessary and other methods fail. None of my cats have ever shown any ill effects and are certainly in no way disabled: to declaw is not to cripple.

I also agree it is better to be declawed in a loving home than to be in a shelter, put to sleep, or wandering the streets.

My cats are two of the most loving and loved creatures. I didn't take the decision to declaw lightly, but would do it again if needed. I know I am a responsible and loving pet owner - that is all that is important.

 

[themarquis]

crippled?

I can understand the anti-declawing argument, but if you have to resort to such distortions and exaggerations - you are just going to turn off more people than you get to side with you. The same goes for telling people they put their belongings/furniture above their beloved pets or telling them they should not be pet owners if they can't take the scratching.

I do believe it should only be done as a last resort when necessary and other methods fail. None of my cats have ever shown any ill effects and are certainly in no way disabled: to declaw is not to cripple.

I also agree it is better to be declawed in a loving home than to be in a shelter, put to sleep, or wandering the streets.

My cats are two of the most loving and loved creatures. I didn't take the decision to declaw lightly, but would do it again if needed. I know I am a responsible and loving pet owner - that is all that is important.

Well, I think one of the problems is that, unlike you, most people DO take the question of whether to declaw lightly, doing it automatically when they adopt a cat, without looking for alternatives or even looking to see if the cat develops scratching behavior problems in the first place.

We know that the operation and the recovery from the operation is painful, and in many cases causes behavioral problems. It can cause other issues, like difficulty walking. (and of course, death, from the anesthesia.) That is not to say that every declawed cat experiences these issues, but that they are known problems caused by the surgery. Plenty of cats are just fine after being declawed, but unfortunately, many are not.

Given that in many cases (i.e., automatic declawing, which is very common in this country), the operation is basically unnecessary, why would a person subject their pet to a risky procedure that can cause health and behavioral problems? Why? That seems pretty cruel to me. Of course, the situation is completely different when we have a pet owner who has tried alternatives and whose only other option is to get rid of the cat. Then, a risky procedure is worth the trade off.

ETA: you may be right that using the term "crippling" might be a turn off for many people. I'm not sure whether the operation is crippling or not (that's just a matter of your particular definition of crippling) but it certainly is painful, unpleasant, and involves the removal of a part of the toes (not just the nail).

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Well, I think one of the problems is that, unlike you, most people DO take the question of whether to declaw lightly, doing it automatically when they adopt a cat, without looking for alternatives or even looking to see if the cat develops scratching behavior problems in the first place.

We know that the operation and the recovery from the operation is painful, and in many cases causes behavioral problems. It can cause other issues, like difficulty walking. (and of course, death, from the anesthesia.) That is not to say that every declawed cat experiences these issues, but that they are known problems caused by the surgery. Plenty of cats are just fine after being declawed, but unfortunately, many are not.

Given that in many cases (i.e., automatic declawing, which is very common in this country), the operation is basically unnecessary, why would a person subject their pet to a risky procedure that can cause health and behavioral problems? Why? That seems pretty cruel to me. Of course, the situation is completely different when we have a pet owner who has tried alternatives and whose only other option is to get rid of the cat. Then, a risky procedure is worth the trade off.

I agree with you - except for "many" - I wonder if "many" are actually not fine after declawing, or if it is a rare case of there being problems??? I don't see it being that risky a procedure in the long run - though, again, no procedure should be done automatically/unneccessarily.

The problem is those who are making the types of judgements I mentioned above don't really care about how responsibly the decision was made - it is black and white: if you had your cat declawed you have "crippled" your cat, you care more about your belongings than your pet, and you should not own own a pet - end of story. That is what I have a problem with.

 

[MzDiz]

We have one cat that came to us declawed. The funny thing is, he knows his paws are useless for defense, so he bites!

 

[themarquis]

I agree with you - except for "many" - I wonder if "many" are actually not fine after declawing, or if it is a rare case of there being problems??? I don't see it being that risky a procedure in the long run - though, again, no procedure should be done automatically/unneccessarily.

The problem is those who are making the types of judgements I mentioned above don't really care about how responsibly the decision was made - it is black and white: if you had your cat declawed you have "crippled" your cat, you care more about your belongings than your pet, and you should not own own a pet - end of story. That is what I have a problem with.

Yes, absolutely. I really wish people could just get out there and spread the word about how unnecessary declawing is, as well as actual medical facts about the process, without using some of those scare tactics you mentioned. I wonder whether a lot of people would change their mind about declawing when they realize the alternatives there are.

Case in point: a friend of mine from several years ago adopted a cat and immediately booked an appointment to get it declawed at the vet. I was a bit surprised, and said something like: "oh, did the animal shelter tell you the cat had a scratching problem?" (assuming she must have some reason to declaw it.) She replied no. I then asked her why she was getting it declawed, and she seemed surprised by my question, replying that of course she was getting it declawed. That's what you do with cats

I think this is the problem with declawing in this country. People incorrectly pick up the message that "that's just what you do with cats" because "of course they will scratch your furniture". But if they just waited to see what happened and clipped the cat's nails and provided lots of scratching posts and discouragement if the cat tried to scratch furniture, they might find out that their cat is just fine

Alternatively, many people fear that their cat will scratch their baby or their children. Although this can happen, it is certainly not that common, and when cats do scratch people, it is usually unintentional and causes an extremely mild injury on the very top surface of your skin (I cannot tell you how many tiny, mostly non-painful scratches I have gotten from childhood to today! ). In addition, clipping the claws makes it basically impossible for them to injure a person. Again, the problem is that people are given incorrect information that cats are dangerous or that babies and cats are incompatable.

 

[PhotobearSam]

I asked for this not to be a DEBATE...Please people. I just wanted a sampling.

it looks pretty much 50/50 so that is it.

Please, state your case but don't comment on the other people...I want a true representation and I don't want people not to put their reasons down because they are afraid to get flamed.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

yeah, I can't believe some of the misinformation that is out there - especially when it comes to babies! We had outdoor cats growing up and never suffered anything terrible. On the other hand my sister was torn up terribly (really deep gashes) when her cat got riled up over a stray cat outside the window. She made the mistake of trying to get her cat out of the window (and admits it was her mistake) - though in all fairness I can tell you she would never declaw a cat. I don't agree with never.

I am totally for putting the facts out there and letting them speak for themselves and calling for people to be better informed and responsible!!!!

Everyone also has to realize that no matter how much info you put out there, not everyone is going to agree - look at the poll!

 

[CheshireVal]

I can understand the anti-declawing argument, but if you have to resort to such distortions and exaggerations - you are just going to turn off more people than you get to side with you. The same goes for telling people they put their belongings/furniture above their beloved pets or telling them they should not be pet owners if they can't take the scratching.

I don't get this. If you look at the reasons most of the people in this thread had their cat declawed, you'll see it's because of furniture. So I don't understand how this is a distorted fact.

Declawing is considered cruel and is illegal pretty much everywhere outside of North America.

 

[kinntj]

My DH's cat is declawed in the front. He had her before we were married and we both made the decision to declaw her, so she wouldn't keep scratching up our new mattress. Granted, he did it because I told him to have it done or the cat is gone. There was no middle ground for me. I do have to say, that I thought declawing was just removal of the nail and not any joints or knuckles. I guess it was a don't ask and get the gorey details from the vet kinda thing.

I'm a dog person, so this will be our last cat ever. Cats to me are like fish. They aren't practical. If my kids and DH want to be around cats, they can go to the IL's they have 5.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I don't get this. If you look at the reasons most of the people in this thread had their cat declawed, you'll see it's because of furniture. So I don't understand how this is a distorted fact.

Declawing is considered cruel and is illegal pretty much everywhere outside of North America.

I get mine declawed because I do care about my furniture - it is wrong for anyone to claim I care MORE about my furniture than my pets. You don't know that and it is not a given.

You have a right to feel that is cruel and should be outlawed - I do not see it as that exreme.