Some of the rescue groups here will make you sign a paper that you will not declaw the cat if you adopt one from them.

Comment by Mary — September 26, 2009

Mary, you’re not getting it. I don’t “approve” of any of the procedures you mentioned. If you hadn’t just parachuted in, you’d know that.

But I do NOT believe medicals decisions should be made for my beloved pet by fact-challenged animal-rights true believers and vote-trading legislators who don’t even read the bills they vote on much less consider any unintended consequences or indeed much more than where the donations for their next election are coming from.

Now, you have one more chance to discuss the issue before I decide you really are a troll. Try to get to the root of the issues. Break them down, and look at them. Then … discuss. Parroting the same party line as if it’s the utter truth doesn’t work here.

There are some ares that have enacted laws against tethering a dog out all the time. Good, right?

THIS is exactly why I do not agree with more legislation for “animal rights” - the unintended consequences of such laws.

Let me tell you about my dog - raw-fed, does agility, happy, loves every person he has ever met, is great with other dogs (and some cats), sleeps on my bed at night, regular vet checks, clean teeth, well groomed, nails trimmed… in other words, not abused or neglected in any way.

But… if I lived in an area with anti-tethering laws, I could be charged. Because yes, I do tether him out for more than 3 hours at a time without access to shelter or food. What a bad dog owner am I!!!!! (bonus points for 5 exclamations, right??)

Mind you, I’m in the yard with him. However, anti-tethering laws say nothing about that. According to the LAW, my dog is better off in the house, and I’m abusing him by allowing him to be in the un-fenced yard with me.

The more specific a law gets, the greater the chances are for unintended consequences.

No to mandatory S/N.
No to bans on docking and cropping.
No to bans on declawing.
No to bans on “debarking”.
No to bans on commercial breeders.
No to breed bans.
No to bans on prong, choke and/or shock collars.

Where I stand on any of those issues is irrelevant - I still will not support any further legislation, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WORK.

this is much more concise than Wiki

http://cache.gawker.com/assets...../Troll.jpg

And does not require understanding or comprehension of more than one written word.

Here trolly trolly trolly….

*

Mary, I have been reading and commenting at Petconnection for about three years. This is about the most even tempered internet pet blog extant. Sometimes we disagree, passionately, but the reason that most of us like this community is that as diverse as we are, EVERYONE here is deeply commited to animal and human welfare.

Trying to pin anyone down to absolutes here with regards things like declawing won’t work. Gina has said repeatedly in this very thread that she is no fan of declawing. As have others. I am no fan of jumping to a procedure such as declawing without exhausting other options. It’s a last resort option in my mind. But do I want to make it a crime to opt for declawing over euthanasia? No, not ready to go there. That certainly does not make me “pro-declaw” although I’m sure some will disagree.

The whole, rather spectaculary missed, point is that these things should be discussed and considered in an objective, non-emotional manner. Looking at facts, research and peer reviewed studies rather than soundbites, anectdotes, feelings and visceral emotional reactions.

Hard to do, sometimes difficult to accept, but a damn good intellectual exercise. And sometimes an eye opening one too. :-)

And by the way: Since it’s pretty apparent that you missed all your English classes, I’m guessing you ditched most of your civics classes, too.

You don’t have “a right to free speech” on someone else’s blog. We don’t feed trolls here.

What I believe is that medical decisions are best made by the person who loves and cares for the pet on an individual basis of what’s best for that pet. The person to make that decision is the owner. Medical decisions shouldn’t be made for pet-owners by fact-challenged animal advocates and legislators who have as much business making medical decisions about our pets as does anyone chose at random. As in, none.

Your challenge about tethering isn’t a medical matter — it’s a cruelty issue and a public health issue, since there ARE peer-reviewed studies linking chaining with biting. Again, the issue is getting the facts and making good public policy based on the facts, not on what upsets you personally.

What I did say was that people were defending de-clawing based on the “animals are mine” belief and you’ve just done it again above. No law (or LAW, as you prefer), should tell you what to do with your animals.

My neighbor who tethers his dogs 24/7 feels the same way. Ask him and he’ll tell you he loves and cares for his dogs, that he knows what’s best for them. Just like you. He believes chaining his dogs to a tree in the pouring rain is what they need, but the law, (sorry, the LAW), says differently. The LAW says he must provide shelter for his unfortunate animals and I, for one, am glad it does.

I understand it’s currently the rage to bristle over government intrusion, but it’s dangerous for animals to live and die under totally subjective standards of treatment.
As I wrote in my earlier post, which you chose to ignore, if there is no prohibition against removing toes, there is no basis for preventing the removal of teeth, tails, ears, vocal chords, you name it. Is there any alteration you would not permit an owner to perform on her animal? If so, how does it differ from de-clawing.

You’ve stumbled in here and apparently saw little more than the word “declaw,” reading into post exactly what you wanted to read. That’s called “cognitive dissonance,” and it’s a pretty big problem for many people.

In the first place, no one is advocating declawing. No one. Not in the original post and not in any comment since. The point is that no one else is able to make an individual decision for what’s best for my pet than I can with the help of my veterinarian. Individual decisions should be made by pet-owners and veterinarians, not fact-challenged animal activists and legislators who trade votes without even considering what they’re voting on.

In the second place, declawing can indeed pass the same test you use for spaying/neutering. Countless cats live long and happy lives with people who would not otherwise have (or, in some cases, be able to have) a cat with claws. That means more homes for more cats. Just because you don’t like it and I don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

The overarching point is that there is a large pool of fact-challenged animal advocates who consider nothing but their own inconsistent and illogical beliefs and are working to force all of us to share those beliefs by law. And they delude themselves by calling one surgery mutilation while acting as if the other is done with the wave of a magic wand.

And it’s THIS situation that doesn’t pass any test.

Legal mandates based on nothing more than emotion and because it “feels right”? Wrong. Education, incentives and disincentives to change cultural perceptions and behavior? Right.

I do not declaw, and I do spay-neuter. But it’s not anyone’s business to tell me what’s best for the animals I love and care for. That’s my job, as a pet-owner.

It’s also my job as a journalist to help people make those good decisions for their own pets based on the facts. Those decisions don’t happen with ineffective, feel-good legislation that doesn’t absolutely nothing but make animal advocates feel morally superior to the “bad” people they think they’re controlling.

Since you are new here, I’m going to give you a little insight: We look at issues fairly, honestly and sometimes with no small degree of discomfort. I believe looking at what’s true — not what we want to believe — is the only way to form strategies to help make the world better for animals.

Pretending spay-neuter doesn’t hurt and is wholly beneficial is supporting a lie. Pretending declawing is only about laziness, convenience and materialism is also supporting a lie.

You start with the truth, and then and only then can you look for strategies and solutions that will end up with fewer declaws and fewer pets in need of rehoming.

And that’s the goal we all share.