Alaskan Sky Pixie Bob Cattery

Since scratching is a natural behaviour of cats we must be prepared to accept this behaviour along with the cat. Despite the fact that most cats will use designated scratching posts when provided, we must accept that occasional damage to our material belongings may result. The solution to this is not to mutilate the cat but to learn acceptance. If scratching is a problem for people, it is their problem and not the cat's.

The failing of this argument is that without question, declawing certainly increases the risk of long term harm to the cat - and most definitely causes short term harm. Phallangial amputation of cats is used by pharmaceutical companies to test pain killers as it is one of the most painful procedures that can be performed. Just consider that it has been (and still is, in some places) used as a form of torture with humans.

The surgery, if not performed correctly, can result in many detrimental effects. Any general anaesthetic puts a living organism at risk. If the bandages are put on too tightly the foot can become gangrenous and necessitate amputation of the leg. In many instances one or more claws will begin to regrow causing extreme pain, or if either the trimmer is dull or the cat's nail is brittle, the bone may shatter. This is called a "sequestrum" which becomes a sight for irritation and continuous drainage from the toe. This can only be corrected by another surgical procedure.

Some chronic, physical ailments including cystitis and skin disorders have been traced to the period immediately following this surgery. Theories also suggest possible effects to the cat's weight bearing and movement kinetics.

There is no evidence either way as to the long term behavioural effects a declawed cat may or may not experience, and much anecdotal evidence exists to support both viewpoints. However, as they have been deprived of their primary source of defence - their claws, declawed cats often resort to biting when they feel threatened. Many groomers and veterinarians agree that they are far more difficult to handle, both because of the increased incidence of biting and due to a lack of self confidence resulting for the loss of their favoured defence mechanism. Shelters are also often forced to euthanize declawed cats that have been surrendered because of this type of behaviour.

With all these risks, one would like to compare them to the benefit that the cat experiences - unfortunately there are none.

This argument is used by many, but when considered in depth is simply countered with the old adage "Two wrongs don't make a right." Amputating a cat's toes is just a wrong as surrendering a cat simply because he/she no longer fits in with his/her person's lifestyle or having a cat euthanized because it was acting as a cat should. It is easy to justify one inhumanity because is may be better then another inhumane option, but both are unnecessary, and neither is justifiable.

When approached form a purely logical standpoint, this becomes a difficult question. First, one must accept that keeping companion animals is not inherently bad in itself. If this is taken as a truth, then we as humans, become responsible for the wellbeing of their species. This includes providing birth control as is necessary to preserve the health of that species. For animals, three possible birth control options currently exist: castration (neutering) or vasectomy for males, ovariohysterectomy (spaying) or tubal ligation for females, or forced abstinence. Castration and ovaiohysterectomy provides birth control, but it also shapes a cat through a surgical means to fit better into our human society as the entire reproductive organs are removed and the hormone flow, which governs sexual behaviour, is ceased. Vasectomy and tubal ligation provides birth control while leaving the reproductive organs as intact as possible, and therefore not altering the cat's natural behaviour. Although this alternative is not recommended in every case, it is by far to infrequently - if at all - considered. Forced abstinence should only be chosen as a short term solution. Intact tomcats are compelled by physiological changes to mate. Forcing them not to mate causes them undue stress and discomfort. The eggs of an intact queen who is not permitted to mate, and therefore can not ovulate, become encysted in her ovaries, which may lead to cancerous tumours. Unlike declawing any form of sterilisation provides a net benefit for the feline species' and is therefore justifiable.

For many cat lovers declawing is unconscionable, many veterinarians will not perform the procedure, it is outlawed in some countries, and there is currently no animal welfare organizations that condone the practice. Despite the nonsurgical alternatives that exist, many people still view this as a preventative procedure that is necessary for a cat to be a "good pet." It is this last viewpoint that so many cat lovers find infuriating. Cats are already wonderful companions. They do not require any surgical modifications to become the loving companions they are known as worldwide.

As many, who have authorized having their cat declawed, will freely admit, it was done to prevent damage to their furniture. Cats represent a living, thinking, feeling, entity; how can we ever place their welfare on the same balance as that of our furniture.

Declawing is inhumane. Although, scientifically, there have been no decisive long-term studies to research the behavioural effects, declawing represents a clear and undisputable risk to the cat. No one has the right to mutilate another, for their own personal gain.