|
Should the U. S. Have Anti-Declaw Laws?
Case for Anti-Declaw Laws- Declawing is a painful, cruel, and inhumane practice of mutilation, much like amputating a human's fingers at the first knuckle.
- Declawing deprives a cat of his most important defense mechanism, leaving him vulnerable to attack, if he slips outdoors, by other cats, dogs, or predators.
- Declawed cats often develop biting habits and/or litter box avoidance, either of which lead to subsequent abandonment or euthanasia.
- Declawing deprives a cat of the stretching, pulling exercise necessary for the development of strong muscles.
- Cats are digitigrade - meant to walk on their toes. Declawing forces cats to alter their gait, which eventually can lead to tendon damage and crippling arthritis.
- Along with long-lasting phantom pain, possible negative effects of declawing include anesthetic complications, infection, hemorrhage, or degenerative claw regrowth, in which the claw grows back through the top of the toe.
- There are a number of humane solutions to scratching problems, including nail trimming, scratching posts, soft plastic nail caps, or adopting an already-declawed cat.
Case Against- Anti-declaw laws would be difficult and expensive to enforce.
- Why criminalize a professional for saving a cat's life by declawing?
- The decision to declaw or not to declaw is a personal one which should only be made by the cat's owner, in consultation with her veterinarian.
- If local agencies pass anti-declaw laws, people will just go to the next town for the procedure.
- If declawing is made illegal, more people will either abandon or euthanize their cats.
- There is no scientific evidence that declawing leads to behavioral abnormalities when the behavior of declawed cats is compared with that of cats in control groups.AVMA position.)
- Laws should be enforceable and not symbolic.
Where it StandsCalifornia seems to be leading the nation in attempts to pass anti-declaw laws, both on a municipal and on a statewide basis. Anti-declaw resolutions have been explored in Berkeley, Bay Point, and Contra Costa county. California Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-42nd District) plans to reintroduce a slightly revised version of AB 395 in the 2004 session of the California legislature. Both sides of the issue will have eyes turned toward California next year, in anticipation of victory.
|
|