search
top

In NY, Cats Must Be Armed. People Not So Much

NRA Deputy CatNew York is considering a ban on declawing cats. But of course: in New York, we declaw people instead. I get that declawing is pretty gruesome, but like most feel-good legislation (gun control being only one example)¬†things aren’t so cut and dry. The unintended side effect (and there always is one when you use the force of the state to bend people to your will) will likely be more cats being put down after frustrated owners dump their problem felines on overflowing shelters. Pick your evil.

17 Responses to “In NY, Cats Must Be Armed. People Not So Much”

  1. Sigivald says:

    Glue-on claw caps work wonders.

  2. Ian Argent says:

    I’ve been given to understand, by a vet, that the old method of taking off the first knuckle is no longer good practice and that they now kill the claw site chemically. It’s still not a great idea for other reasons, but it’s not a disfigurement.

    For that matter, it can be medically necessary for some polydactyl cats to prevent the claw of the extra toe from in growing.

    • lucusloc says:

      If I can handle chemical “declawing” to fix ingrown nail problems, I’m sure a cat can as well. Especially since they get to be unconscious, and I only get not-very-effective local anesthetic.

      • Ian Argent says:

        Disapproving of something as a regular practice != “There oughta be a law”

        Which more people need to realize

        • lucusloc says:

          ?

          I think this is a case of “the internet needs more punctuation.” I cant tell if your mad at me, or you think I was mad at you… (I was actually agreeing with you by pointing out we do it to people too)

          • Ian Argent says:

            I think we were talking past one another.

            • lucusloc says:

              Yeah, design flaw of the internet. Cutting to the main point (at least my main point, pretty sure I lost yours from the start): I hate cats, and I’m not to fond of most people either. YMMV ;-)

  3. Chase says:

    I really, really don’t like the idea of surgery to take away a cat’s claws.

    However, I’ve read that it doesn’t cause the cat any pain or impairment besides inability to slash things with claws, because their toe pads are on their middle knuckles, and their claws are on their last knuckles.

    It’s been pointed out to me that declawing is generally a last resort, and that although declawing a cat is not ideal and should be avoided if at all possible, it’s much less cruel than sending a cat to a painful life and rapid death in a shelter.

  4. TS says:

    Well, if we’re going to go down this path, then chopping a cat’s balls off also has no place in a humane society.

    • Sebastian says:

      A lot of animal rights folks don’t believe animals should be kept as pets, ever.

    • Richard says:

      All things considered, I prefer removing Bloomberg’s balls.

      • Merle says:

        Do you really think he has any? :)

        Merle

        • Richard says:

          In that case, the balls of his security detail. They have balls, just not morals.

        • Ian Argent says:

          You don’t get to be a successful and rich businessman without gonads, brains, or guts, in the colloquial sense.

          You don’t take on one of the most effective lobbying organizations without them either. Belittling him is a bad idea; it leads to underestimating him,

  5. Ruth says:

    NY has been on a power trip lately. We all know about the SAFE act of course, but the Animal Rights bills that keep popping up are at least as scary and frequently even worse written.

    Like the one that bans dog ear cropping…..to the extent that someone traveling through the state with their rescue dog who was rescued with cropped ears could end up a criminal.

    Or the one that appears to be trying to ban long term tethering of companion animals, but in reality makes it illegal to contain your pet (or potentially livestock) at night in any way shape or form (including livestock fencing, putting the dog in the house, etc), and that would also make it illegal to keep your Great Dane in your house due to your ceilings being to low.

    Or…..yah, I could go on. I REALLY want to see NYC and the surrounding suburbs split off and made their own state so that the rest of us can stop trying to fix their stupidity!

  6. RAH says:

    Personally pet owners can be absurd about their animals. I say that as a pet owner I have owned horses, dogs and cats. I do not believe in restricting cats to house only and let them roam free. My carpets have been destroyed by the cats as well as door weatherstrips and screens. So I know well the destruction of claws Still I would never remove from the cats their defense.

    My cats manage to survive well
    and deal with interloping cats, the pair of foxes that live on the property. Many raccoons and groundhogs. Even the ospreys, eagles and vultures have not bothered the cats.

    I don’t think a law is needed. As to castrating cats , damn right. Castration is good for animals if they are to live with humans. The only animal I did not have castrated was a dog that was too timid and needed all the courage he could get.

    My mother grew up before fixing female cats and males was available and her father would take the newborns and either drown them or wring their necks. So avoiding that is a good thing

    • Merle says:

      Letting cats roam free out in the country is a good way to get them shot. They take a heavy toll on game animals, and that will get them on the hit list.

      In town they are at risk from cars, dogs, etc. So is it really a “favor” to let them roam free?

      Merle

top