A Cat’s Meow
Sep 30th, 2009 | 7 responses
Where have you heard this before:
“We believe that the decision to perform a medical or surgical procedure should be made by the ____ in consultation with their ____.”
If you filled in the blanks with “patient” and “physician,” you were wrong. The correct answer is your cat and veterinarian.
In California, it seems the health care debate has spread to cats. Specifically, the declawing of cats, a procedure technically known as onychectomy or flexor tendonectomy. Cat lovers say declawing a cat’s paws is an act of animal cruelty.
And, if you thought the California legislature’s only mission last July was to what laughingly is referred to as balancing the budget, you were wrong again.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law July 2 that gives the state authority over medical scope-of-practice issues and prevents cities and counties from passing ordinances banning medical procedures starting Jan. 1, 2010.
This has created a state of urgency to beat the deadline in cities such as Santa Monica, Los Angeles and San Francisco to clip a cat’s scratching tools, according to a dispatch in today’s Los Angeles Times.
Dr. Mark Nunez, president of the California Veterinary Medical Assn., which sponsored the state law, said his group is opposed to bans at the local level. “We believe that the decision to perform a medical or surgical procedure should be made by the owner of the cat in consultation with their veterinarian.” The association represents more than 6,000 veterinary professionals in the state.
Memo to Dr. Nunez: Humans don’t “own” cats; they take care of them, mostly.
The Santa Monica City Council voted last week to draft an ordinance restricting animal declawing effective no later than Dec. 31. Councilman Kevin McKeown said declawing is “an unacceptable act of animal cruelty.”
The city of West Hollywood set the standard by banning declawing except for medical purposes in 2003. The decision was overturned after a challenge by the veterinary association but was reinstated by a state appeals court in 2007. The state Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Under the new state law, West Hollywood’s ban will stand, as would any other municipalities’ bans that take effect before Jan. 1.
There’s one animal rights group that is waffling. Madeline Bernstein, president of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Los Angeles, said her group is not in favor of animal declawing but is neutral on the issue of city bans.
Pet owners/caretakers set the rules for the animal kingdom. Declawing an animal seems to me an act of perversion as it would be forcing a human to chew and eat after removing all the teeth. Another acceptable practice for good reason is neutering male and females, a procedure if applied to humans would be associated with those town hall death panel chants.
A crazy world we live in. Human children have no lobby. Pets do.
7 Responses to “A Cat’s Meow”
I've always seen California as an example of what happens to economies when one side of the political spectrum shuts out the opposition and does whatever it wants (the other being the Cheney Adminstation). Great article, yet another example that good things always come in moderation, hopefully the people of California will realize that soon.
Off topic: I finally got to see LA, would be a beautiful city if not for the smog and I was amazed by how large it was from the plane, coming from a small town of 4000 in Texas and thinking Houston or San Antonio were big. I'm a big Texas Longhorns fan and I wore my UT shirts as a matter of pride in enemy territory. While touring LA I was amazed by the comments from passerbys who noticed by shirt. Not exact quotes, but along the lines of “Bet you wish you were home” and “You tourists are so lucky”. I wore those shirts expecting a USC fan to talk trash but this surprised the heck outta me. I made to sure to spend a little extra, seeing as how toursim is probably the only thing keeping that state alive.
“A crazy world we live in. Human children have no lobby. Pets do.”
But no one is arguing that we should cut off a part of the child's body shortly after birth as people do with cat's claws.
…. wait… never mind.
Thanks for dropping the extra cash in LA
I've always had cats, and one of my current cats is even declawed, but not by my doing. Not only do I believe the practice to be cruel, but there's no good reason for it. It's pretty easy to clip your cats nails if necessary, at least if you have a good repoire with your cat and have the god given sense to stay away from the quick. A human toenail clipper does the job just fine… but for those folks who worry about their furniture more than they do the maiming of an intelligent and sensitive creature like a cat, then a goldfish is the better pet choice.
I agree with you that declawing a cat is cruel and can endanger a cat's life as well (even indoor cats can escape). I would only add that if you can afford a cat, and don't want to clip the cat's nails, there is another alternative besides going for goldfish: You can have a professional do it. It's not expensive, and there are tons of pet grooming places around now.
I hate the thought of yet another stupid law to mandate one single thing, especially about pets. What would be nice though is if landlords would stop this nonsense about accepting cats but require the cats be declawed. Most people I know who ignorantly got their cats declawed did so because their landlord merely told them that it was required and they went along with it. Terrible ignorance both on the part of landlords and apartment managers as well as placid owners.
The first time I went apartment hunting, I only went to places that accepted cats with no other requirements. I wound up with a place further out and more expensive than I'd hoped, but I didn't want to mutilate my cat for a 1br 1ba. The next time I went apartment hunting, I told prospective landlords that my cat was not declawed but I regularly maintained his nails and he had a scratching post and pad that he always used. Imagine my surprise that all the places I spoke with didn't seem to care, and in fact never have I had a landlord come “check up” on my pets to see if they met whatever rules were set forth in the lease.
Why have declawing as one of them? If someone's negligent enough about their pet that clawing is going to noticeably wreck up the place, you're probably going to have much more serious pet damage in the way of horrible smells and weird stains anyway. Plus isn't that what the pet deposit is for, and the extra monthly cost tacked onto the rent? Dogs can do way worse damage with chewing, scratching and marking, not to mention barking, but no one requires declawing dogs, making them wear diapers at all times, filing down their teeth or removing their vocal chords!
I always encourage people I meet who are cat-owners to never ever declaw, and to never accept that a landlord “requires declawing” until they've checked. Often times the manager “just put that on there because” and would rather have a nice tenant who is willing to sign a lease and start paying deposits and rents.
“I've always seen California as an example of what happens to economies when one side of the political spectrum shuts out the opposition”
Hmm…this really isn't the problem. The problem is that we have a state that's highly polarized. We have large portions of the population far to each side of the spectrum (SoCal is extrememly right-leaning, while NorCal is extremely left-leaning). Then we made laws that nobody can do anything without a huge majority (except, evidently, change the consititution…go figure). So we've got two sides that are idealogically very far from each other, that will never get along, but there are enough people in each camp to stymie anything the other side is doing.