Category: Veterinary Profession

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.

What is Zoonasia?

We seem to have little knowledge or understanding of the secret world of ‘disposal of genetic surplus’ or in layman’s terms – the euthanasia of zoo animals not suitable for breeding in the opinion of science.

Cruelty to zoo animals, zoonasia, zoo lions,
Iconic zoo animals are often killed as surplus to requirements.

The declared dogma of most reputable zoos is that of a scientific and research emphasis based on doing everything possible to save species from extinction by any means possible. Most of this work operates behind the scenes and therefore is not entirely understood by the public and many of us may feel uncomfortable about what is involved in saving species.

In many ways the modern-day ‘professional’ zoo can almost be likened to a research laboratory where they use a team of veterinarians, scientists and researchers to carry out their breeding programmes, but when such professionals become involved in ‘saving’ or ‘rescuing’ species, the rights, welfare and interests of the individual animals become less important  and sometimes lost.

Jens Sigsgaard, a zoologist at Aalborg Zoo in Denmark puts it this way: ‘Our function is not to keep an individual animal alive, but to keep the species alive’.

Zoonasia explained

A major problem for zoos is maintaining a good gene pool of unrelated animals from a dwindling supply of captive animals and avoid inbreeding. This is done by constantly exchanging animals around the world’s zoos, but the difficulty is that it is impossible to breed to order. Therefore  the process of maintaining stocks of endangered and iconic animals for ‘future generations’ involves collateral damage in the form of “surplus” animals.

Iconic animals such as lions and tigers that help pull in the crowds are constantly overbred or are born the wrong sex and become liabilities as do many endangered species if they do not meet the requirements of a breeding program. An estimated 3-5,000 zoo animals are killed each year in the UK, although reliable figures are difficult to obtain or substantiate due to the obvious reluctance to divulge such information. Killing these animals is known in the trade as ‘Zoonasia’. This carnage appears to go mostly unnoticed by the public and even when highlighted is soon forgotten.

Zoos promote a caring public face by giving animals names to make our visits more personal and they are happy to show off expensive natural enclosures, state of the art veterinary care and top-quality diets, but the zoo professionals have a strange detachment when it comes to killing surplus animals.

The case of Marius the Giraffe

This subject came to public attention in 2014 with the story of a two-year-old male giraffe named Marius who was killed at the Copenhagen Zoo  by their veterinarian Mads Bertelsen, DVM, DVSc. He then dissected Marius in front of cameras and families with young children on the pretext of education after which his remains were fed to the zoo’s lions.

Zoonasia, zoo animal culling, cruelty to zoo animals
Young zoo animals can find themselves surplus to requirements if they are born the wrong sex.

That same year the zoo killed  four of their lions and dissected a beautiful Sable antelope. The zoo was unrepentant despite worldwide outrage and couldn’t understand what the fuss was about. Bengt Holst, the Director of Research and Conservation was surprised at receiving death threats and a petition to sack him. The zoo not only upset the public, but the zoo profession in general, as they were not best pleased that their relatively secretive activity of culling animals was made so public. The zoo explained their reasoning in this way:

“The side effect is that we have a surplus of animals. It is in fact fortunate that we can use them as food. Instead of killing 20 goats or a cow, we can use the giraffe,” says Mads Frost Bertelsen. Zoo Veterinarian.

Mads Bertelsen, had apparently regularly carried out research on giraffes over the years for their ‘benefit’ and had dissected ‘a large number of surplus giraffes to investigate their cardiovascular anatomy using state-of-the-art methodology’.

Jens Sigsgaard, a zoologist at Aalborg Zoo, Denmark was quoted as saying that ‘surplus animals are already dead biologically speaking in the sense that they do not contribute to the next generation’. Only a scientist could refer to animals in this way.

All this is being done on our behalf to save animals for future generations of mankind and for a mythical time when the animals are released back into the wild. But will future generations be that interested as there are few if any wild animals existing already and most people do not seem that worried.

At least one zoologist, Liz Bonnin, has declared that it might be time to close zoos down as they no longer serve any purpose only to entertain and charm the public and has commented: ‘They’re [Giraffes] sentient, emotionally intelligent, cognitively gifted animals that deserve a better quality of life. It’s shameful that we scoff at anybody who raises the issue of animal welfare’.