San Francisco votes to ban cat declawing

how you find this???? this post was from 2 yrs ago..

Someone whom I follow voted it up. I was giving my two cents at the tail end of a grave yard shift, so I didn't really notice how old it was.

cool stuff! just wondering... hope you had a good weekend!

You do know that San Francisco is only a CITY of a state. It's not even the capital of California!

Yeah i get it but they have their own problems to be dealing with too. for example: last week the bay bridge had a peice completely drop off, couldn't we use the money we're spending on banning cat declawing for fixing that bridge?

Legislation takes time. The bill was introduced and set to vote several weeks ago (around 2-4 weeks ago). 2-4 weeks ago, they would have never seen something such as part of the bridge falling apart. No one can make accurate predictions about incidents like that occurring. When an accident happens, it truly becomes a problem when the city if they don't do anything about it.

lol okay.. good point, bad example on my part. but im just saying arent there better things for these people to be voting on. im gonna go for another example: couldn't they be working to investing money into creating incentive for people to start going carbon neutral?

Yea, there probably are better things to do. There's no doubt that there are some legislation that are a waste of time. But, there are two problems with that mentality. 1) Who decides what is more important? 2) If we concentrate on things that are considered "important", then the little things such as opening public parks and libraries would be put on the bottom of the list because "more important matters" are at hand.

1) the people we put in power. we vote so we can select officials who can represent our point of view. 2) there should be a priority on fixing things that need fixing rather than creating parks and libraries. co2 use should be one of those priorities, so should fixing our financial deficit and if you're gonna address animal rights then why not address human rights that are being violated all over the world? Once those two things are addressed and the money we spend on fighting "wars" is back in our pockets, sure I'd agree with you. but right now there are so many different and more important things that need attention. prioritizing is a basic skill that everyone should have yet, to me, it seems many of our priorities are backwards

if you could make every desicion in office what would your priorities be?
just curious. Personally id focus on the things i stated in my last comment but everyone has a different view point so id like to hear what you think.

So your point is that if we prioritize instead of hitting all targets at once, the general movement that is trying to work is suffering? If it is then how do you decide what comes first? you need to address each situation separately or else your movement will fall apart. your efforts will be too spread out to be able to put effort into each specific facet you are attempting to fix.

Obviously, you didn't read the link I posted.

Why are you so upset? It's evident in your usage of loaded language. Do you know how the procedure of declawing works? If so, explain it to me. Let's pretend I'm the so-called, "moronic hippy douche" and explain to me how the procedure of declawing works.

Let me make this clear. Your cat's situation DOES NOT APPLY to ALL cats. Please don't have the misconception that based on one experience that is should be generalized for the rest of the population. It sounds great that your cat is coping well with her treatment (despite my disapproval). But what about the other cats that suffer complications, not from other variables involved in the surgery such as aesthetics, but from the procedure itself and the healing from the procedure? There are many cases of cats documented that have become lame due to the surgery. Please give me your explanation of that.

Cats are primarily declawed for the owner's convenience. They don't want a cat scratching the sofa, and don't want to put the time into training them not to do it. Or they're afraid of getting scratched which, really, is not a concern in most cases. I've been scratched by my cats on accident, when they or scared or mistake me for a landing pad, or occasionally when I'm annoying them by doing things like giving them medicine, and it's really an incredibly minor injury. I've hurt myself worse cooking, or sometimes walking. (Note: I am a klutz.)

And while indoor cats may not need claws for protection in the same way as outdoor cats, it's still not a great idea. In addition to the unknown factor--what if the cat escapes?--it can also cause behavioral issues. Cats know they don't have claws, and without the ability to protect themselves can become very skittish or defensive and develop other behavioral issues, like biting or territorial behaviors, as a result.

Cats need their claws for balance, among other things. Those cats whose owners provide their house-bound cats with clawing boards will generally do far less damage, if any, than without a board. A large, dead branch in the corner of a room also provides them with the opportunity to climb as their nature imposes, and keep them off furniture and curtains and such. Cats need to claw something to get rid of the outer layer of their claws every now and then so that the claw doesn't keep growing and pierce their pads. Furthermore, clawing provides them with a vital form of exercise akin to stretching with tension - their bodies require this.

No animalia_libero, I absolutely don't see the correlation. Breasts can't LITERALLY RIP THE CORNEA OFF YOUR EYEBALL. Period.

See the problem with your argument?

There is a spectrum of how cats claw others. What you're doing is generalizing all types of extension of claws to mean something harmful. In reality, cats usually "claw" in pleasure. For instance, when a cat is feeling happy or content, especially when they're sitting in your lap, they tend to extend their claws a little and kind of do this type of pawing. It's hard to explain.

The other time a cat would extend their claws is when they're hunting (if they're indoor and outdoor cats).

Another is when they're defending themselves (for about 3 seconds) before they run away. Cats are cowards. There is a reason why they are extremely fast and elusive because they cannot fight for themselves very well, no matter how strong or big they are.

On a rare occasion, will cats randomly attack people. In that case, the cat is most likely traumatized in some way, feral, or diseased.

The idea that you're "helping" a cat by declawing them is rationalizing the method to better suit your own reasons. Here is a link that explains the procedures of declawing and the complications from the procedure. http://maxshouse.com/Truth%20About%20Declawing.htm

"In reality, cats usually "claw" in pleasure. For instance, when a cat is feeling happy or content, especially when they're sitting in your lap, they tend to extend their claws a little and kind of do this type of pawing. It's hard to explain."

That's called kneading (the dough). It stems from kittenhood when they were suckling, kneading with their front paws to help the milk along. It is a time of great pleasure and security which leaves its imprint on the cat, which for the rest of its life will knead when feeling happy, feeling good, feeling secure, ...and yes, feeling loved.

I notice all of the photos in your little lineup are very OLD black and white photos. Done when the procedure was new, nowadays it's been perfected. You, PETA, and Republicans are all the same, use scare tactics and tell yourself the ends justify the means to make your point. Cats HISSSSSS as a defense too you know?

Sorry I don't fall for that shit as easily as you and everyone in San Fransisco seems to.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put those pictures. I still don't know how to use the new system on current. I'm going to try to remove them.

But, you still haven't addressed my statements.

EmperorThan.

People declaw they're cats for various reasons. here's another one.
The cat is sharpening his or her claws on your $25,000.00 Roche Bobois sofa, for example.
Just stating a fact. I don't have either a cat or a fancy schmancy sofa, though I have had cats in my care in the past.

This mutilation is not for aesthetics - it is done on dogs which can get into fights, on fighting dogs too, so that they do not get their ears ripped off in the fight. It is also done on certain breeds of dogs whose ears flop down, which often leads to multiple ear infections and even death.

I looked at a few sites on the practice of "ear cropping" for doberman pinschers. They talk more about aesthetics than anything else. Though for guard dogs it is suppose to give them better hearing. I'd hate to be a basset if it's done for ear infection.

Trying to argue about Doberman ear cropping when talking about cat declawing is the dumbest correlation of arguments I've ever heard. They have nothing at all to do with each other. People don't declaw cats for cosmetic aesthetics, they do it so they don't get clawed to pieces and cus cat's don't know the difference between right an wrong! Wrong being, clawing anyone for any reason they chose in their pea size brains. And yes if your cat claws some random person your local law enforcement will put your cat or dog to sleep. PERIOD. And if you don't believe me about that then I can't help you.

And btw, yes, dogs do get ear infections because of the shape of their ears. My cocker spaniel Clancy got something like 25 ear infections in his long life, and that was WITH cleaning out his ear on a weekly basis. People like you would probably would say it was TORTURE for me to cut his ear hair and clean his ears with alcohol weekly.

I also used to own a sugar glider and it required claw trimming every 2 to 3 days. Do you know how hard it is to trim the claws of something that can fly around the room??? If it could have it's claws removed in a medical procedure I gladly would have done so, but they're so tiny I doubt their claws could be removed.

I mockingly called declawing a manicure, feeling that this cat story was not worth a #1 spot in the news section. The ear cropping picture came up as part apology for the sarcastic association between declawing and manicure, and to show that I was not insensitive to what animals go through.

But what I think, thank you for asking ... if you operate on an animal for aesthetics, that is screwy. If you're doing to modify its behavior to suit your lifestyle then maybe find a different pet.

BTW a sugar glider needs it's claws as much as it needs it's membrane to fly. If you did declaw it you would had probably ended up with a very depressed mouse kind of thing.

Nice!!!!

Loupetho, i'm not missing the point at all. I understand what you meant in your comment. At the same time, you say "personally find it a little disturbing, and funny, that a story on manicuring a cat not only runs side by side with national and world events but gets a top billing" I will say it again, news and more news about the world, the hate, the racism, the deaths, the wars is an occurring theme here and everywhere else.

You asked a question on why a cat story is up and I answered it. I just don't follow the world or follow what "Young Americans" think of. There are enough sources to get news and world events. This time though, love for an animal took top billing and I'm happy animal lovers get to express their love and stories with us.

Also, this post was not a simple thing as "manicuring" an animal. You should think about the comment you made and read the stories that are on here before thinking a procedure as taking out the fingernails of cats, is a simple manicure.

Aww. He's adorable. It's good that he found such a loving home.

Ha, well, he is Chairman Meow... Seriously, though, I'm glad to hear other people do that. When I was growing up, we had a dog who, as it turned out, did not so much like our new kittens. So, for most of my childhood, we had the house divided into two halves, and would rotate the cats and dogs through different rooms/areas. Non pet owners found this very odd. We found the suggestion of getting rid of any of them much stranger.

Heh--yeah. Our dog was a Great Dane, so it was a tad more complicated...she would have stepped right over a baby gate. :) It worked out pretty well, actually. I'm glad the cats I have now get along with each other, though. It makes living in an apartment oh so much easier.

Ah, yes. Our cats had claws but it was no contest. The first time we tried to introduce them, the dog lunged at and grabbed the cat, at which point my Dad tackled the dog and the cat went flying. Everyone was fine--if anyone was in pain after, it was my Dad more than than the pets--but it was pretty scary. And, in retrospect, kind of a little bit funny in a Keystone cops sorta way.

Because not every story should be about the loss of life, man saving someone, death because of someone or politics, there's enough to go around. If you need tragic or amazing discoveries, keep searching... you'll find something...

That's right. I found this refreshing to discuss something other than the state of the nation for a change. Plus, animals matter to me and to many others, obviously.

I think it is the horror of everything else that made us cling to this bit of fluff. The disappointment that I feel over Maine, Jersey and NYC can be pushed to the side by arguing about cat claws.

I can see your point EdJoyProductions, I've kind of said that in the comment with the dog photo below, it's just weird/interesting to me that it gets such a high billing. In all honesty, who am I to judge, I just hope it's only a pit stop for people who feel powerless about world events and not a trend.

By the way, I'm in France, and what we do here if we don't like something the government does is to get out in the street. Most of the time the people get their way. I seems like (and hopefully I'm wrong) that in the US it's big business and lobby groups that have the upper hand.

Too true. France. :) Wish I were there.
Still fuming over the gay marriage overturn in Maine! We need more taking to the streets here in the US but you are right. I just wish you were wrong. It would be less embarrassing. We are all slaves of the corporations.

Salut, loupetho! Il n'y a que peu de francophones sur Current. Ravie de faire ta connaissance!

Salut Vierotchka,

Excuse mon français j'ai vécu la plus parte de ma vie en Australie.

Ça fait bien de faire ton connaissance aussi. Je ne pense pas qu'on n'a quelque chose comme 'current' en France.

Le pauvre, j'aime l'Amérique mais leur politique capitaliste et les multi-national leur tue.

Ludovic

you're the only hater here.....

Animals are too often unable to sufficiently protect themselves from human ignorance (see Michael Vick) So are children, women, minorities, etc.
Hence the concept of legislation and law enforcement.

@renbyrd,
can you please elaborate more about your comments. In my view, I support your statements. But, I cannot say what you're implications are.

@others,
please understand that hypersensitivity on the subject tends to drive others away from your arguments.

Thanks @anglcazn, for keeping this debate from straying into emotion.

My argument is that we cannot establish law to protect animal rights. Are humans animals? Yes. But they are also human and function in a human-built society and therefore are subject to its laws and rights.

Do animals have emotions? Perhaps. I don't want to debate that, as it becomes in essence a debate on the existence of souls.

Do animals deserve to be protected? Yes. As property. The moment we begin passing legislation similar to this law, we start on a downward slope toward undermining human rights. I find it greatly offensive, @RFIDemocracy that you compare the rights of women, children, and minorities to those of cats and dogs. The life struggles and fundamental nature of humans are vastly different than those of animals and should never be diminished so. And where do we draw the line of what animals deserve these rights and protections and what don't? Should be stop spaying and neutering? Should raccoons and rats receive similar rights?

And, @animalia_libero, I am not denying that humans are animals, but you are denying that humans are humans and are unique for their capabilities to reason, record, and create technologies.

Here's my solution: Domestic animals should not be maimed or harmed, but the way to protect them is not to pass law establishing "animal rights," but rather hefty fees and taxes dissuading such abuse of "property." I feel bad calling my pets property, but in doing so, understand that most U.S. legislation is to protect one's property. That's what America was built on. Let's find alternative ways to stop animal abuse.

Fine. We disagree because I do not believe animals are human and therefore do not have the same rights and laws as HUMAN BEINGS. Animals don't get rights, nor do vegetables, fruits, cars, houses, etc. You believe they are sentient, have souls, etc. and thus we will continue to disagree until the end of time.

Slaves were humans. Don't diminish their sufferings to those of cats being declawed. That's in poor taste and disrespectful of the injustices down to generations of slaves.

Complete freedom and liberation would be to ban animals completely from our civilization. No pets, no meat, no dairy, no animal involvement at all. Very idealistic, but very impractical.

Also, if you are anti-state, than wouldn't you be against the very enactment of laws in general?

@animalia_liberio,
We all know you're not here to debate. As seen with your other posts and responses, you're only here to show off how "righteous" you are. You see your opinion as fact and that everyone else is wrong. You rely on this emotional, irrational outbursts to voice your opinion. It's as bad as," Look at you, you dirty human! That meat could have been a baby cow. You should be ashamed of yourself! That baby cow could have grown up to be an adult cow! You took a life!"

Just throwing it out there. Cats ARE NOT humans. This is not about the fundamental value of life. But the biological fact that cats do not think like humans and vice versa. And to make a point, emotion and rationality ARE NOT psychology. Do you even know what psychology means? What the field is about? Other than being demonstrably wrong, you're parading around an unsupported philosophical opinion to justify the weaknesses of your argument after the fact. You're throwing words you don't understand to try and establish a type of informed opinion or authority. Another thing, aren't you the one that said that reptiles don't matter because they're not mammalian? Hmmm... I sense hypocrisy.

"I also always find it strange that those who don't agree with animal liberation movements automatically dismiss perfectly valid arguments as wrong or "too emotional" simply because they are not so cold that they show complete disrespect for the lives of others."
Valid arguments? Like what? All I've heard is "FEEL GUILTY!" The tactic of trying to evoke an emotional response based on irrational and illogical reasons is pathetic. Yes, there are some good points mentioned by people who are honestly discussing the situation. But there are many who claim righteous. It's no different than the ones who claim that homosexual marriages will bring massive floods to this planet.

I don't even understand why I'm bothering to reply to you. You're not going to discuss. You're just going to shove my comments aside and claim yours as the "absolute truth" while trying to establish an unhealthy relationship of you, the guilt tripper and emotional evoker, and me, the person who will feel "guilty" of having a house pet. Sorry, that's not going to happen and it doesn't work. To quote a politician, "Talking to you is like talking to a table!" Except, replace table with a child in an emotional tantrum.

@renbyrd,
You make very good points. But, there are some that I have problems with.

First, I would like to address that we mostly likely have different definitions of what is considered a "right." It is true that what is considered "human rights" is not entirely applicable to "animal rights." To put it in a general sense that is applied to all animals on this planet, I am for animal rights because there should be laws that dictate that cruel and unusual methods should be punished by fines and forced to attend classes of the animal they have offended, as mentioned in my earlier post.

"Do animals have emotions?"
Personally, yes they do. It's not about the existence of souls (or even if souls exist :] let's leave that for another discussion) but their ability to express and feel emotions such as happiness, sadness, anger, etc. Cats, and other animals, do have these feelings. Cats that I have dealt with understand fear, loneliness, content, sadness, and joy. But, it's not to the extent that humans experience such emotions because of the capabilities of the brain of the animal.

I was slightly troubled about your comment that animals should be protected as property. Animals shouldn't be protected as property but as a being that needs protection against unnecessary and undue harm. If what you argue is true, than laws that forbid poaching of eagles, funds for animal reservations and sanctuaries, and restricting human access to certain parts of the world should be abolished because we are not protecting them as property but as beings to thrive in their environment without becoming extinct at the hands of humans.

"Also, if you are anti-state, than wouldn't you be against the very enactment of laws in general?"
I just have to note, this is a perfect response. :]

Does that mean you don't have anything to argue with then?

What arguments have you felt that I've ignored? I think that I've addressed them. Give me each one that I have not addressed and I will address them now.

i agree with renbyrd. love animals but we have better things that we have to deal with right now

doesn't sound too bad. "today in class, we're going to file our cat's nails, give him treats, and pet him for 30 minutes. questions?" ;P

pretty sure my cat is happy to have spent 14 of his nearly 15 years of life in a loving and nurturing environment, even though he lost those claws and bone soon after my dad brought him home. and i'm pretty sure i prefer this opportunity for cats rather than putting them to sleep because they can't find a home due to declawing being outlawed. but that's me.

i'd still rather a cat live than die.

and landlords can make their own rules. pets or no pets, claws or no claws. i won't live somewhere that won't allow pets and i won't live somewhere that i'm required to declaw my cats (my future cats won't undergo the procedure).

My cat has a long life, was ASLEEP when her claws were removed, felt no pain and had no trouble climbing trees, climbing fences, OR catching birds WITHOUT her claws. Cats can live just fine and dandy without them.

I think that's a little harsh. Yes, a lot of people turn pets into shelters for really awful, horrible reasons. But other people have no choice. What about someone who has a child that is born with a life-threatening allergy? Someone who has to go into assisted living or the hospital for an extended period of time and has no one to care for the pet? What about someone who is forced by economic circumstances to make the choice between feeding their pet or feeding their children? Or who has lost their home/has to stay in public housing where pets aren't permitted? In many of those cases, giving up a pet is an incredibly painful and difficult decision, and if those circumstances change (people get back on their feet, recover from an extended illness, the child grows up and moves away) those people could be wonderful pet owners again in the future.

Possibly a rare side effect though. At least, so I would hope.
First I had heard of it at any rate.

same here...

it was actually somewhat endearing, if you ignored the messiness. you'd start petting her, and she became a drool factory. have to put a towel on my lap to avoid changing pants when i was done. ;P

We all love our animal companions complete with their inevitable idiosyncrasies.

'cause cats are sooo cute. :)

Good point.

well, apparently a group of people got organized and worked to change something they thought needed to be changed.
You should do the same thing.

Because San Francisco is run by a bunch of damn liberals.

yeah, the liberals, because conservative is practically synonymous with frying the big fish first

I recommend Nephwrack.... sorry, don't have the Jedi recommend button yet.

The PLA (Palestinian Liberation Authority)??? There are no Tibetan monks in either Gaza or the West Bank.

Sounds counterintuitive right? But they used the dogs to attack without warning. It was a story I heard on NPR. They were interviewing a drug dealer and he was explaining it as if it were a common practice. They also debark for illegal dog fighting. It really is sick.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=799&dat=20000327&id=BbQKAAAAIBAJ&a...,4250371

jeeze, "drugdealers", or thug drones who abuse and fuck w/ animals...there needs to be some ethics. you can make $, without selling your soul and abusing animals/people around you. dump drones.