Maryland becomes second state to outlaw cat declawing

[owlegrad]

Saw this on YouTube and it caught my eye. Any thoughts on if this is a positive or negative development? If it is so inhuman I am surprised only two states have banned it. I would love to hear the experts thoughts on it?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[that redhead]

I haven’t gotten an email from MDVMA yet, but we’ll see.

This is an extremely hot button topic in vet med. I’m of the opinion that there are very few instances where I would deem a declaw strictly “medically necessary” for the animal. The biggest reason “for” is the oft-bandied-about hypothetical of an immunocompromised owner who will die or be hospitalized by a cat scratch. Of course we all read about those stories, or the ones where the cat will be surrendered to certain death if they aren’t declawed to protect their owner’s furniture or whatnot. On the flip side, we as a profession need to acknowledge that the alternatives we present to owners are not always simple or easy to implement strategies, especially for lazy owners who just want the claws gone yesterday. So while I personally don’t support declawing animals, I know there will be a lot of vets that will speak up against the ban.

 

[battie]

I've also seen the argument of politicians/politics dictating what medical procedures veterinarians can do.

And while only two states have outlawed the procedure, smaller organizations/municipalities have. It's illegal in the city of Denver. VCA doesn't allow declawing. There also seems to be cultural shift; I haven't been asked once by a feline client about declawing since I started in June.

 

[DVMDream]

This is a hot topic in US vet med, other countries have had declaw outlawed for years. I'm all for outlawing declawing of cats. This shouldn't be a controversial topic in the slightest.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

Mine is an unpopular opinion: I see no reason to outlaw declawing cats. I haven't done one for decades and the clinic where I'm at now doesn't do them, but it seems hypocritical to me to outlaw removing some body parts for owner comfort and convenience, and not outlaw the removal of any other body parts for owner comfort and convenience.

 

[DVMDream]

Mine is an unpopular opinion: I see no reason to outlaw declawing cats. I haven't done one for decades and the clinic where I'm at now doesn't do them, but it seems hypocritical to me to outlaw removing some body parts for owner comfort and convenience, and not outlaw the removal of any other body parts for owner comfort and convenience.

What other body parts are removed only for owner comfort and convenience? The other body parts we regularly remove that I can think of are uterus and testicles and those have proven health benefits to the pet.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

The other body parts we regularly remove that I can think of are uterus and testicles and those have proven health benefits to the pet.

Nope - no benefit to the pet in removing testicles, and only a benefit to removing uteruses in the first few years of life.
I'm not in favour of declawing cats, but I believe that it's no more unethical than neutering them.

 

[DVMDream]

Nope - no benefit to the pet in removing testicles, and only a benefit to removing uteruses in the first few years of life.
I'm not in favour of declawing cats, but I believe that it's no more unethical than neutering them.

Neutering eliminates testicular cancer risk. It also eliminates roaming behavior. I'd say neutering is probably more debatable of the overall benefits compared to spaying.

Spaying eliminates pyometra risk and blah blah mammary cancer, meh, I'm not even including that because current research indicates we should spay later anyway at least in larger breed dogs. In cats, no reason not to spay early and then get both benefits. But, if you're not going to spay it is recommended you breed (starting at about 2 years of age) to keep pyometra risk down. Repeat heat cycles in unbred females are highest risk for pyometra. Basically either no uterus or a pregnant uterus. Once you're done breeding, it is recommended to spay.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

Neutering eliminates testicular cancer risk.

A ridiculous argument. Amputating legs eliminates the risk of a broken leg, but we don't do that.......Reducing their risk of rare disease is not the same as benefiting them. We don't remove people's appendixes to eliminate the risk of a ruptured appendix, or perform mastectomies in people without a family history of cancer, just in case they might develop it anyway.

It also eliminates roaming behavior.

See above. That can be done without a surgery, so why put them through a surgery when a little owner effort can equally reduce the risk? Because people find it faster and easier.

Spaying eliminates pyometra risk

See above. And since having multiple litters can also decrease the risk, then why not do that rather than performing a surgery? Again: for people's benefits, not for the pets' benefit.

 

[DVMDream]

Yeah, not even going to discuss further you know it isn't all for convenience.

 

[that redhead]

I can see the arguments against spay and neuter from a health perspective. In my opinion, the spay is the more important from a medical future perspective because of the way we keep animals. They’re frequently just for companionship and people want a hands-off approach to their care more often than not. They don’t want to deal with breeding and litters and finding homes for puppies, all to prevent pyo or mammary cancers. That certainly speaks to a degree of convenience, I won’t argue that.

However, a big part of it is population control and breed preservation. Why not just have multiple litters to prevent pyo? Uh, because that pumps another handful of animals out into the universe, per unspayed female, per cycle. Who sires these puppies? Who pays for the dam’s care and the immediate care of the puppies? Trying that approach responsibly would be a lot more effort than people want to invest. And that’s completely ignoring the population of unwanted animals that are in shelters and even euthanized every year. So no, I don’t think that approach is a viable alternative. Whereas regular nail trims, claw caps, increasing desirable scratching opportunities and even training your cat are things that are not always easy but are far more feasible for your general owner.

Other countries have gotten away without routine sterilization of their pets. And maybe it’s an admirable goal. But we all can appreciate the…special…population of society we have here in the US. I’m not convinced we’re ready for that level of responsibility. And because these elective surgeries have proven to be effective in preventing reproduction, I don’t think they can be fairly compared to something like a declaw

 

[CalliopeDVM]

So no, I don’t think that approach is a viable alternative.

Oh, Lordy, neither do I. I think it's a horrible idea.......I just mention it because I don't think it's bad for the pet itself, but rather for society and people's costs and work.

I’m not convinced we’re ready for that level of responsibility.

I tend to agree, but that doesn't make the surgery for benefit of the animal. It, like declaw surgery, is still for people's benefit - so ethically I don't see one as good, and sometimes required by law, while the other so bad it should be a crime. I hope that they're never asked for and no vet ever does another, but that's different than saying I think they're unethical and should be illegal.

I just don't kid myself that one is done because the owners want it and the other is done for the medical benefit of the pet.

 

[DVMDream]

I just don't kid myself that one is done because the owners want it and the other is done for the medical benefit of the pet.

Suggesting that other vets are "kidding themselves" because there are medical benefits to spay/neuter compared with declawing a cat is something rather special.

Even the board of therio recommends spay/neuter in non-breeding animals due to the health benefits (in combination with the behavior benefits as well). There are zero health benefits and only negatives to declawing cats.

This really shouldn't even be a discussion. Declawing cats is barbaric. Spaying/neutering is far from barbaric.

 

[DVMDream]

And this is coming from someone who used to be a supporter of declawing. I was told all the usual, if it is done correctly, with proper pain control, it is fine and there are no lasting effects.

I even had my cat declawed when she was a kitten (radiographs have shown it was done well, had them utilize laser on her and kept her on a regimented pain control/confined schedule post-op to be sure she healed well). Now, 12 years later, I regret it. She has fairly bad arthritis now in her front paws, shoulders, and hips. Declawing alters the way they have to walk and redistributes weight/gait in a way that was not intended.

She can't posture in the litter box well sometimes and so ends up with urine/litter all over her back end that needs to be cleaned on a regular basis. She visbily limps around on occasion. Yes, I have her on pain control, but we all know there are limited pain control options in cats. The amount of times she has a urine soaked back end would have likely had her either surrendered or euthanized if she were owned by someone else.

It has been proven over and over that declawing increases, not decreases, behavioral issues and thus behavioral surrenders. Increase chance of them not using the litter box (because it hurts), becoming aggressive and using teeth since they are without claws.

There is just zero comparison in causing life-long pain to a cat by declawing them with a spay/neuter procedure. No comparison. Rather sad to see someone even try to compare the two.

 

[KCgophervet]

What other body parts are removed only for owner comfort and convenience? The other body parts we regularly remove that I can think of are uterus and testicles and those have proven health benefits to the pet.

Dewclaws, docking tails, ear cropping...

 

[that redhead]

Dewclaws, docking tails, ear cropping...

These came to mind for me too. My perception is that those cosmetic surgeries have been frequently shunned by vets nowadays anyway, aside from those that the breeders choose, but maybe that was just in my bubble.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

My perception is that those cosmetic surgeries have been frequently shunned by vets nowadays anyway,

They certainly are here - The last vet that did ear crops in the region retired recently. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop owners from wanting and getting ear crops done. At least I'm seeing many more dogs of typically cropped tail breeds having long tails. Still a small number, though. We do have a Dobe patient with both ears and tail unchanged, which is nice.

 

[Nigripes]

Ear cropping, tail docking and declawing are surgeries that are completely unnecessary and have no medical benefit to the animal. They are for cosmetic purposes only.

 

[BidingMyTime]

My n=1 non-vet professional anecdotal experience. I've had many cats throughout my lifetime. All of them had there claws (and I personally would never declaw a cat), except for a 10 year old cat I had adopted who came already declawed. This cat seemed to hiss swipe more and go for the eyes than any other cat I've seen. I assume it was to compensate for its lack of claws, but a cat swiping its declawed paw on ones eyes has the potential to do more damage than a normal cat clawing at ones hands. My experience leads me to prefer cats with claws (but if the time and opportunity were right, I wouldn't turn down adopting a cat because its previous owner had it declawed.)