Activists vehemently opposed to the declawing of cats (who I applaud and support) were disappointed that the 20 finalists in this year’s “America’s Favorite Vet” competition declawed cats. They therefore employed tactics to mess up the voting system used to find the best veterinarian out of the 20 finalists. They did this to make a point: none of them deserved to be finalists; only vets who never declaw should be classified as the best in the country as they are the only vets complying with their oath!
Apparently, many of the 20 finalists were hit with “a barrage of complaints” relating to the fact that they declawed cats. The anti-declaw campaigners harassed many of the candidates in the competition with the use of rude comments on social media, negative reviews and phone calls in order to distort the voting process with the intention of highlighting the fact that these veterinarians, that were meant to be held in high esteem, were declawing cats. The declawing of cats has belatedly become controversial, thankfully. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify it, even amongst veterinarians who are steeped in the tradition of declawing of cats for non-therapeutic reasons and for the convenience of owners.
Because the voting system was so conclusively destroyed by the anti-declaw activists the body which ran the competition, the American Veterinary Medical Foundation (AVMF – a part of the American Veterinary Medical Association) decided to award all 20 of the finalists as winners of this year’s America’s favorite vet.
The veterinarians who were finalists were obviously disappointed. The chairman of the AVMF, Dr John Brooks, condemned the harassment (as he would):
“Apparently many of the so-called animal activists have no problem practising cruelty to human beings.”
He is saying that the activists were being cruel to the finalists in this competition. He appears to be equating what the activist did to mess up the final part of this competition with the cruelty that takes place when a veterinarian declaws a cat for non-therapeutic reasons. They are not comparable. This, in itself, tells us how this person perceives declawing and how out of touch he is with the arguments surrounding declawing, the complications, the botches, the pain and how in the modern age it is simply unjustifiable and genuinely cruel.
Please comment on Facebook as well as it helps spread the word – thanks.
You are allowed to write that 😉 I have written similar things. I totally agree. If anti-declaw activists were as cruel as vets they’d chop off the last section of Dr Brooks’ figures. They are not cruel but kind gentle people who have the common sense and decency to see the cruelty and immorality in declawing for non-therapeutic reasons.
Declawing of cats is torture, pure and simple. Regarding the statement of AVMF Chairman Dr. John Brooks, who condemned the so-called “harassment” by saying: “Apparently many of the so-called animal activists have no problem practising cruelty to human beings,” I think “cruelty to human beings” – or at least to the veterinarians involved in this competition – might perhaps be cutting their fingers off at the first knuckle. That’s what declawing has been described as. Arseholes!@!! Am I allowed to write that???