Category: Cats

Why the U.S. veterinary profession is happy to declaw cats.

The declawing (onychectomy) of domestic cats is a controversial issue which has been in the news recently in the U.S. because the state of New York has become the first State to ban the practice. It can only be viewed as a barbaric procedure, with no moral, medical or ethical necessity to do it, but most of the world still allows cats to be declawed. Surprisingly though, the worldwide veterinary profession, and particularly U.S. veterinarians, appear unwilling to weigh in and stop it.

Cat claws, declawing cats. cruelty to cats
Apartment owners to do not their cats damaging their furnishings.

It is lawful in the USA and Canada, although some city authorities such as Denver and Los Angeles ban it. It is popular in the U.S. because many owners live in high rise apartments and do not let their cats outdoors where they can have a good natural scratch. It is illegal in most of Europe, the U.K, Australia and New Zealand where it is deemed as unnecessary and inhumane. The procedure involves cutting off the end bone of each toe with guillotine clippers or a scalpel under anaesthetic with a nerve block used for each paw. Some vets use a laser to cut through. If you were to watch such an operation, it would make most people squirm.

Cats can suffer many side effects.

Cats have their paws bandaged afterwards, are hospitalised for two days and are issued with 7 days of painkillers. Side effects include numbness in the paws, infections, back pain and possible ongoing pain medication. It is therefore surprising that so many vets are willing to perform it, but not only that, even campaign against it being banned.

Because of the campaigns to outlaw declawing some veterinarian are promoting tendonectomy whereby the tendons that allow a cat to extend its claws are severed by surgery. Another method without the need for surgery is plastic caps that are glued over the claws, which unless you have a lot of patience and a very placid cat also requires a regular visit to the vet for the cat to be sedated. But are any of these alternatives any better. Thanks to the pet trade the plastic caps have become a fashion craze spread by social media.

Cat claw covers, crulty to cats, cosmetic surgery on cats

Declawing in U.K. illegal since 2006.

Declawing became illegal in the UK when the new Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force which made it an offence for a veterinarian to “carry out a procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment” and under their guidelines a veterinary surgeon “must not cause any patient to suffer by carrying out any unnecessary mutilation”. This has supposedly stopped tail docking in dogs, which was a similar scenario in the U.K., where many veterinarians fought against having the procedure banned, but that’s another story.

Declawing cats was possible in the UK for cosmetic reasons before this, but there was little call for it, unless it was for medical reasons such as nail bed cancers or on cats of owners suffering from bleeding disorders and immunodeficiences when a scratch could be harmful. Ironically many commentators believe declawing makes cats bite more.

Many U.S. veterinarians campaign against a ban.

UK vets are at odds with their colleagues in the US who have always resisted attempts to ban it and actively lobby politicians and law-makers. It is difficult to understand why a so-called animal welfare profession can be so indecisive over this issue. It is pretty much a black and white – as either the procedure is inhumane and unethical or not. To be fair not all U.S. veterinarians are pro declawing. The problem lies within the veterinary profession which cannot decide whether it is welfare, scientific or business orientated.

The New York State Veterinary Medical Society published a long position statement on the subject which includes a few scaremongering comments about euthanasia and makes one wonder whether US vets have forgotten their oath “to protect animal health and welfare and to prevent and relieve animal suffering“. Some of the reasons given for keeping declawing legal are:

  • it should be an available option when the alternative is abandonment or euthanasia;
  • declawing of cats should be considered after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively;
  • cats that would lose their home if not declawed face a higher risk of euthanasia and spend years in conditions that may be far from ideal.
Perceived cultural difference between U.S. and U.K. veterinarians.

There is also a perceived cultural difference between the U.K. and U.S. whereby the British put welfare before all other considerations and Americans want the freedom of choice what to do with their possessions.

It could be that this cultural difference manifests itself in U.S. veterinarians who are unhappy at being told not to do something. Or could it be that with an estimated 20 -25% of U.S. cats being declawed it is a lucrative business at a low cost to them and whether it be declawing, tendonectomy or plastic caps a ban would seriously impact their income.

Top animal charities spend £500 million a year saving unwanted animals.

Are animal re-homing charities failing animals?

We all know that the thousands of animal “re-homing” charities in the UK and around the world are doing wonderful work in finding new homes for hundreds of thousands of animals each year, because they are quick to tell us so and we see their great work depicted on television documentaries and in the press. As donating public we revel in the glow of sad stories and happy endings of animals finding “forever homes” and for this reason we throw millions at these charities to enable them to continue.

The top eight UK charities spend £500,000,000 each year to support the infrastructure to “save” and “rescue” animals from us humans. In the case of the Dog’s Trust, the UK’s leading dog charity, this works out at £8,100 per dog to care for and re-home the 13,141 dogs (2017 figures).

It would seem on the surface that the animal re-homing charities are doing a really good job and making the most of the money we give to them, but should they judge their success by the number of animals they take in and re-home or by what they are accomplishing in reducing numbers in the first place.

The Humane Societies of the United States (HSUS) is constantly criticised for not giving enough of their funds to animal shelters, but they once succinctly responded by declaring that their aim was to “prevent cruelty and stop animals entering animal shelters in the first place”. It could be argued that the re-homing charities are perpetuating the problem of irresponsible pet ownership by offering a free service to accommodate and re-cycle unwanted pets, strengthening the creed that they are disposable objects.

Each year the number of unwanted and abandoned animals never seems to decrease.

Are animal shelters just re-cycling plants for irresponsible owners.

Each year the major UK animal re-homing charities take in tens of thousands of unwanted dogs, over a hundred thousand cats, thousands of horses and donkeys and hundreds of thousands of rabbits and other small animals. All these figures could probably be doubled, trebled or even quadrupled if you consider the numbers taken in by the hundreds of smaller UK charities.

Local authorities supposedly dealt with 7,000 stray, abandoned and unwanted dogs in 2017 of which over 2,000 were put to sleep although these figures seem far too low. The Cats Protection charity alone cares for nearly 50,000 cats annually.

If official figures are correct, we are supposedly getting on top of the abandoned and stray dog numbers on the streets, but half of the dogs that the Dog’s Trust accept, 6,500 (2017 figures), are strays from local authorities. Any slight decrease is more than matched by the increasing number handed into animal rescue centres by fickle owners so the status quo remains despite continuing campaigns and free neutering. This results in more facilities opening to cope with the continual flood. To make matters worse we are increasingly importing other countries’ stray and unwanted animals. We have had a cat and horse crisis for several years now and an increasing problem of unwanted exotic pets which has resulted in even more charities to rescue them.

While charities are happy to continue picking up the burden there is no incentive for the government or the law to intervene or take notice. The UK Government almost entirely washes it hands of the subject and even relies on animal charities to collate figures on the state of our animal keeping habits such as the RSPCA with their cruelty figures and the PDSA with their PAWS survey otherwise we would have no idea of the problems.

Kittens, rescue, animal rescue,, abandoned, unwanted
The number of stray and unwanted cats in the UK is incalculable.

There must be more to animal welfare than just re-homing dogs and cats.

The charities will argue that they only exist for this purpose, but surely this is a short-sighted outlook and instead of proudly proclaiming the increasing numbers they are finding homes for, they should strive to decrease the numbers becoming unwanted in the first place.  There must be more to animal welfare than just re-homing dogs and cats, but most charities seem happy to just tread water, accept the status quo and never make inroads into solving the major welfare problems. Do we just accept this as a fact of life and money well spent or should we expect more from them? Perhaps it is time for a completely new mind-set.