- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,826
- Reaction score
- 369
Just wondering what GOOD alternatives there are to declawing (front and back) a kitty? Soft paws? Anything else?
You can also sever the tendons. It is an alternative...just not a good one IMO.
You can also sever the tendons. It is an alternative...just not a good one IMO.
Is this a more humane alternative?
Thanks to everyone for the replies. 🙂 I don't want to make this question too specific because I don't want to violate the terms of SDN and ask for medical advice.
I think it ought to be done more often in attempts to keep folks from either throwing out their cats, or encouraging them to get cats.
the procedure is called a tendonectomy which just means you are taking out a piece of each tendon that is responsible for retracting and contracting the nail.... a tendon causes less pain than removing the actual bone and nail (as with a declaw)... so from the stand point of pain yes I would say it is more humane however I am still against both procedures unless absolutely neccessary for various reasons. With a tendonectomy the nails are still there the cat can not use them....THEY STILL GROW...and therefore the nails need to be trimmed every two to three weeks depending on how fast they grow. They will grow into the paw pad and cause horrible pain if they are not cut...so this procedure is not for someone who can not trim the nails......The cats seem to have less pain and discomfort and will actually start walking on them the next day sometimes even the day of the surgery wich is uncharacteristic of declaw.
Anyone else have any thoughts....? I have actually seen the nails grow back into the paw pad of some cats.... the doctor I used to work with would rather perform this surgery than the declaw. So this information comes from what she has told me in the past (accuracy ?) never looked it up to check.
I work at a shelter and I know the vet and a few other people there have said there are studies that indicate that cats who have been declawed are actually more likely to be surrendered. Supposedly there is a higher incidence of behavioral issues causing them to be surrendered.
Tendonectomies, in many cases, end in severe chronic osteoarthritis in the long run so not better, or more humane, in my opinionthe procedure is called a tendonectomy which just means you are taking out a piece of each tendon that is responsible for retracting and contracting the nail.... a tendon causes less pain than removing the actual bone and nail (as with a declaw)... so from the stand point of pain yes I would say it is more humane however I am still against both procedures unless absolutely neccessary for various reasons. With a tendonectomy the nails are still there the cat can not use them....THEY STILL GROW...and therefore the nails need to be trimmed every two to three weeks depending on how fast they grow. They will grow into the paw pad and cause horrible pain if they are not cut...so this procedure is not for someone who can not trim the nails......The cats seem to have less pain and discomfort and will actually start walking on them the next day sometimes even the day of the surgery wich is uncharacteristic of declaw.
Anyone else have any thoughts....? I have actually seen the nails grow back into the paw pad of some cats.... the doctor I used to work with would rather perform this surgery than the declaw. So this information comes from what she has told me in the past (accuracy ?) never looked it up to check.
I have a leucistic rat, too!!! He isn't really well bred (a little bit of bug eye) and has some behavioral issues, but is overall a great snake.
I've heard the same statistics from rescue groups and shelter workers. Many of the declawed cats have problems with innapropriate urination which is the number one reason why someone gives up a cat. I've also noticed through my own experience that declawed cats are much more likely to bite and personally I'd rather deal with a cat scratch than a cat bite.
As a sidenote....I also find it odd that many people who are so against declawing are so pro spay/neuter.
Spay neuter is 90% for the convenience of the owner (no oops litters, fewer marking/behavioral issues, etc). The 10% of disease prevention is actually becoming outweighed by health *risks* (increased osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma risk, increased diabetes predisposition, spay incontinence, osteoarthritic problems in large and giant breeds, does not protect against prostatic neoplasia etc). And as for the population reduction arguement for s/n...studies have shown that "little, unable to place pups" is actually pretty far down on the list of reasons why people give up their animals. The top ones are moving, children, behavioral issues, etc. So, s/n = elective Sx for convenience. Declawing = elective Sx for convenience.
Especially in terms of spaying, that is an invasive surgery. How can people be so against declawing and be so pro spay neuter? They shoot down arguements that people make (" saying that their dog will not be whole without it's repro organs"), yet they make the same arguement (that a cat cannot be complete without its claws, and if you don't want claws don't get a cat). well, if you don't want or cannot deal with puppies or heats, etc should you not get a dog? No. You should get a dog and fix it.
Ok, end rant. Now, that's my logical arguement.
My personal feelings (personal, NOT professional...logically/professionally I have no issue declawing cats) on it are a bit off, though.....I *personally* don't particularly like convenience surgeries, that is why I HATE it when vets give me this horrified look when I say my next dog will remain intact because I refuse to have him/her undergo surgery and have organs removed just for my own convenience, even though that means I need to up my responsibility even more.....but I had to say it because I think people should hear it.
My 2 cents.
There is a health benefit to declawing, actually its technically Public Health since it's zoonosis - Cat scratch fever. So if you've got kids, elderly folks, or any other immunocompromised individuals in your house its certainly a consideration.
I suppose its also a health benefit (indirectly) for other animals in the house, if Ms. Kitty isn't armed with razor blades.
As for Ms. Kitty herself? Hrmm...can't think of any health benefits outside of trauma to the nail bed from scratching. Ever see a loopy kitty fighting sedatives repeatedly scratch until their nails bleed? I have. Not nice to watch.
There should be no biological/behavioural reason for a cat to inapp. urinate due to a declaw. Also, many cats are declawed because they may have a problem with scratching/biting and you take away at least one of those 'defense' mechanisms and can get along much better with your cat. Also it is typically much harder to get a cat to bite, than it is to have it scratch/swat (depends on the cat though)
Train your cat to let you clip its claws. Most cat nails are clear so you can easily see the quick or just clip the sharply curved part.
Or use a scratching post. Soft paws work but if you can put them on you could just as easily trim the nails.
One thing I do advise owners of, before they declaw, is that a cat without claws may resort to teeth faster.
re: immunocompromised being a special circumstance...but is it such a rare situation? The very old & very young & the very sick (or have AIDS). Its quite a reach for us strapping healthy 20 somethings, but I'm not convinced its a 'special circumstance' when you're talking demographics of pet owners.
.
You are told your entire life that altering your pet is for the better health of your pet.
It really depends on the individual animal. For example, I would never, ever recommend spaying or neutering a giant breed like a Dane until at least 1.5 to 2 yrs old because of the problems with growth plate closure and proper muscle/bone ratio as they grow. In a Golden Retreivers, we'd have to look VERY carefully at the dog's lineage (if available) to determine cancer risk, as s/n has been linked to increased risk of hemangiosarcoma, an exceedingly common cause of death in Goldens.
It also depends on the owners and how willing they are to take the extra steps needed with having an intact animal (which in all honestly, isn't too hard). If they don't want to deal with it, of course I'd fix the animal, but I'd have a long talk with them about instead of "great idea, let's do it!!" I mean, it IS surgery, and elective at that. Plus, all of this has to be balanced with the fact that you cannot rely completely on owner compliance in anything. So it's a mess.
Canine s/n protects against mammary cancer, true (even though mammary cancer is very rare to begin with) and pyometra, and prostatic hyperplasia (NOT prostatic cancer) and perianal adenomas...and like you said, can cut down on wandering....
Keeping a dog intact reduces the risk of certain other types of cancer (much more common ones), spay incontinence, endocrine disorders, etc...so IMO it is a wash in terms of health.
But honestly I am of the opinion that s/n isn't something to just say GO on (just like declawing shouldn't be). I know this was a little OT but its something that I think the upcoming veterinary community really needs to investigate.