Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Car Thief Steals Vehicle To Get To Auto-Theft Trial
3rd Annual California Dreaming Same-Sex Ballroom Dancing Competition
by Chris Jones
Upholstery across the city became a little less safe last Thursday, when some animal lovers advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors proposed that the city ban the practice of declawing cats. The surgery involves removing the last bone in each digit on a cat's paw to extract the animal's claw. This writer grew up here and had never even conceived of chopping off a cat's claws until going away to college in the midwest, where declawing house cats is a routine practice, along with shamelessly visiting all-you-can-eat buffets and calling soda "pop." The Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on proposed legislation outlawing cat declawing by the end of the year.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
How about this: you can get your cat declawed, but first you have to have your fingernails permanently removed?
With important stuff like this and "Free the SF8", it's refreshing to see the Board of Supervisors is just as focused on fixing pressing city problems this year as they were last year, the year before, and the year before....
How about the Supervisors vote on this after the murder rate is cut in half, and the streets are paved such that they are safe to drive and bike on, and the MTA runs 90% on time?
Which is to say, never?
declawing is easy to stop, just make it illegal. murders are a bit tougher, especially since it's already illegal but people still do it. now if you can give me a realistic plan on how to prevent w/ them, not only will I agree w/ you, I'll give you my vote when you run for office
Actually, the murder rate is much lower than last year. So I guess it's time to get onto the next task after all.
cat declawing is like amputating the nubs of your fingers to prevent you from picking your nose.
it's tough but fair.
Anyone who gets a cat to have them declawed should not get a cat. Pretty vile practice.
Declawing is brutal, but if you ban the practice, someone who can't deal with their cat scratching everything is just going do drop it off at a shelter. There if they don't get adopted they get killed.
which is worse?
Very good point
Or they will just drive 10 miles to another county where it's legal.
Or, if it's banned in the state, to a back-alley declawing clinic.
Our cat clinic in Contra Costa won't perform the procedure anyway, if asked.
It's this kind of ridiculous nanny-state crap that will make San Francisco stop being a great city to live in.
Do we really have nothing more important to do than this?
Is a city government really the right body to be regulating what people do with their pets?
The mind simply boggles.
They will not only ban declawing, they'll deputize special declawing cops to enforce the rules, and collect $100 fines per declawed cat.
And - of course - there will be a Cat Declawing Prevention Commission and associated Citizens' Advisory Council, with monthly stipends and all Brown Act requirements met, not to mention all rules followed about meeting in fully accessible rooms with online video feeds and posted limits on excessive fragrance use.
when cat declawing is outlawed, only outlaws will take their cats to daly city to have the procedure done.
Never mind the upholstery, cats toes may be a little more safe in the future in San Francisco at least, surely the rest will follow where you lead, it is past time that this gruesome procedure was relegated to the history books (except for medical reasons for the cat itself) as it has already been in 37 other countries and one other state in the USA. There is time enough and room enough to debate all issues, including the murder rate and the state of the pavements, all are important in different ways and none detract from the others. If the option of declawing is removed we will then start to see people really having to put some effort into training and caring for their cats instead of taking the easy way out and amputating the toes. And those not prepared to love the cat and the claws just should not have a cat, simple as that.
And why exactly is it the job of a government to regulate what people do with their cats toes?
It's the job of the government because people cannot be trusted NOT to declaw their cats otherwise so it has to be stopped by regulations rather than by people realising it is animal abuse.
Hey, my cat has his claws, as proven by the big scratch marks on my arms and legs and the click-clack of his walking on the hardwood floors.
I just think the SF Supervisors have better things to do with their time.
Like banning female circumcision?
Is female circumcision banned in SF?
This is a really good question. I would think that BOS would choose to ban female circumcision within SF city limits before banning cat declawing. I'm going to have to research this...
Hasn't it occurred to you that the Board of Supervisors are capable of considering more than one issue at a time? Female cicumsision is nasty yes, but that doesn't make declawing cats any less nasty, and I bet there are a heck of a lot more cats declawed than there are females circumcised.
Actually, cat declawing is a lot less nasty. Female circumcision is usually done without anaesthesia or medical supervision, and even when medical supervision is involved, it is done to prevent the woman from feeling any pleasure in sex (often meaning she only feels pain), hence she won't stray from her husband (so the reasoning goes).
Cat declawing, while one might have reasons to disagree with it, is only done by a vet, and the cat is anaesthetized during the procedure. While the paws might be sensitive shortly after, there is no lasting pain.
Thanks for conflating one with the other.
It's a question of priorities though, no? How about this, rank the following in order of (your ideal) importance to city government:
1) Murder rate
2) Cat-declawing
3) Bobbing dog's tails
4) Pinning dog ears
5) Homelessness
Switch #4 and #5 and I'm with ya.
I hope the Board of Supervisors vote to ban the declawing of cats. In the 21st century, there's no excuse for people subjecting their pets to an unnecessary amputation for their own convenience.
Yes, there are other matters that need urgent attention such as the murder rate, but those are more complex problems which cannot be solved with a simple vote to ban them.
All for banning cat declawing, but don't you go dissing the use of the term "pop!" :)
I've had cats who someone else had declawed. I've currently got cats with claws. Declawed is a nice feature, but I wouldn't do it to a cat myself.
I'm glad the supes have time to attend to this important problem. Next up, I hope they tackle bottled water.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09bottle.html
This is hardly an unimportant issue,in fact animal abuse is very important,cats can't speak for themselves and many are suffering physically and/or mentally from having their toe ends amputated.The argument that more cats would end up in Rescue Shelters if their owners hadn't the option of declawing them,just doesn't hold true.In fact Rescue Shelters are full of declawed cats with behavioural problems.According to the AVMA declawing is SUPPOSED to be a last resort procedure for serious scratching problems,so something needs to be done about banning it when kittens are routinely declawed and vets are advertising neuter /declaw packages. A cat can easily be trained to a scratching post, a cat needs his claws for walking, grooming, exercising .....it's time people realised this and didn't take the selfish option of having their pet mutilated.If those who don't like claws didn't get a cat, all the better as they are obviously not the right sort of people to have a cat anway.
Come on San Francisco, get declawing banned and show you are as civilised as West Hollywood and 37 countries where it is illegal already.
Retired vet nurse UK
The greater picture is how we treat our animals, which of course reflects what kind of society in which we want to live. Needless cruel surgery that maims animals and causes them horrendous pain, with many possible long-term behavior problems and suffering, just for human convenience is not what I consider to be humane, and part of a society to which I want to belong.
So let's look at the bigger picture, which for certain includes just one procedure that people do for their convenience, but how do we want to be viewed as a society.
I deplore declawing vehemently. People really should not get a cat if they plan to mutilate it.