HomeDeclawingNational Geographic: “Science on Declawing is Divisive”

Comments

National Geographic: “Science on Declawing is Divisive” — 4 Comments

  1. No the AVMA don’t want any conclusive research done on declawing because they know it is cruel and wrong. Even though their guidelines are that it should be a last resort for serious scratching behaviour, they turn a blind eye to vets advertising declawing with discount or neuter/declaw packages for young kittens!
    Declaw vets like to please their clients who want convenience declawing and fill up their bank accounts by doing that!
    There is never any reason to declaw a cat, if a person can’t kindly and gently train a cat to use a scratching post or pad, then they are not fit to have a cat as a pet.

    • Even the last resort option is wrong and it is abused because it is never done as a last resort. Quite the opposite, declawing is done as the first operation a cat gets with neutering.

  2. How is this controversial? Only for some greedy vets who earn a lot of money from this horrible practice.

    ”Julie Meadows, a professor at the University of California Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital thinks declawing can play a role in protecting the human-animal bond, and in some cases it can keep cats in happy homes”.

    Stupid. Disgusting people. This is not love for cats if you can allow to deform it for your own selfish reasons…

    ”The idea that the science of declawing cats is “divisive” is absurd. The reason why the science is divisive is because a lot of it is poor, inadequate and biased.”

    Agreed. Which science they are talking about? When Smithsonian conducts a study trying to prove that all cats are evil killers and should be euthanized – is this science? When scientists are hired by people who support declawing and create a study that will prove that declawing ”is not that bad”? Everyone can make a bad designed study to prove just about anything. Science is often misused for political agenda. Sometimes science has no play in ethical issues like this. Science can help understand the world around us, the effective treatments, test hypothesis etc. but science is not something we can rely on when speaking about the ethics or morality. Amputating fingers of cats is BAD and no science is going to convince us otherwise. Period.

    • And Julie Meadows is a bloody professor at the University of California Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital. What kind of professor is she? The murdering kind 🙂

      There have been lots of studies on declawing but it is fragmented and inadequate. Common sense dictates that a conclusive independent report needs to be compiled but it won’t be, which confirms to me that the vets know they are in the wrong but they can’t give up their money and they have not got the imagination and brains to substitute declawing for something much better: educating the public and finding commercial alternatives that actually support cat welfare not the opposite.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>