Declawing cats is back on the PoC menu! I am going to take the unusual step of criticising a journalist, Shari Lynn Rothstein-Kramer, about her narrow minded and unenlightened views on declawing cats. Before I do that I would like to praise PetSmart. PetSmart have an adopt-a-pet section in their stores (these are abandoned, unwanted cats etc.). I am not sure if this section is in all their stores as I live in England.
Anyway it is a nice idea and facility but what is even nicer is that they refuse to allow an adoption if the customer says on the application form that they intend to declaw. In other words they are very much against declawing. PetSmart is a very large business so this is great news for all sensible, decent and reasonable people – people who hate declawing. I will presume by the way that most Americans already realise what I have just discovered!
Shari Lynn Rothstein-Kramer writing for Biscayne Times (see the article) says she accompanied her mother-in-law to PetSmart to help her adopt a new cat. Her mother-in-law selected a cat she fell in love with, a Siamese mix, but when she returned to collect the cat she was refused adoption point blank for the reason mentioned – she had declared that she would declaw the cat.
Shari Lynn Rothstein-Kramer got annoyed and argued the case with several PetSmart employees, from junior to senior, that they were wrong. Her argument was that it is more important to re-home the abandoned cat in a declawed state than risk not being re-homed the cat at all. It is the same old tired argument that vets who declaw wheel out when defending this obnoxious practice. They say if you don’t declaw the cat it will be abandoned by the “owner” – the other side of the same coin.
Sorry Lynn, you are plain wrong. What you are saying is that you have to do a bad thing (declawing) to rectify another bad thing (cat abandonment). The old adage, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” comes to mind. It means that a wrongful action is not a morally appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongful action.
We have an obligation to resolve the problem of unwanted cats at source and independently of the declawing problem. We need to address poor and irresponsible cat “ownership” at root to beat that problem. To declaw cats to facilitate the re-homing of an abandoned cat only exacerbates the problem and compounds it.
Sorry Lynn you got this one wrong and you should not be threatening staff at PetSmart with articles on the internet criticising them. They deserve praise. What is very strange is that you say you are an animal lover. Sorry, you are not.