Declawing Cats = Mutilation.

Before I get started, I will simply lay it on the table for you. I am completely against the declawing of cats or any other animal for that matter. I do not see anything right about mutilating an animal for the sake of living room furniture. I have been wanting to mention this in class but I never found the right moment. So, here is my stance.

According to declawing.com, only Americans have adopted the idea of declawing a cat and it has only been for the convenience and benefit of the pet owner. In many European countries, such an act is deemed inhumane and is illegal. What many people do not seem to realize is that declawing a cat is a serious surgery. The claw is not like a nail; it is closely attached to the cat's bone. To remove the claw, the last bone of the cat's claw has to be removed. Declawing is actually an amputation of the last joint of the cat's 'toe' and it is a very painful procedure with a long recovery period. During that period, the animal still needs to use its swollen feet to walk, jump, and scratch its litter box. Cats don't get wheelchairs. Pet owners often do not see their cat is in pain because, unlike human beings, they are very independent and do not want to show weakness. It is in their nature to be prideful, and their instincts tell them to hide the situation because they do not want to lose their superiority from other animals. A cat's body is designed to give it agility and grace that is unique to felines. Its claws are an important part of this design. They need them to climb trees when predators are near, to protect and defend themselves, and to scratch cat littler. When they claw furniture, they are just trying to sharpen their claws. It also exercise their claw muscles, scrapes off the old outside covering, and releases their scent. Amputating the claw alters the conformation of their feet and is depriving the cat of its primary means of defense, leaving it prey to predators if it ever escapes to the outdoors.

When I worked at the veterinary clinic (I know I bring this up a lot but it has shaped a lot of my views), the vet would only declaw the front paws. Cats would have to come in a day in advance for surgery to make sure there is no food in its body. Once the surgery is done, the cats two front legs and paws are completely wrapped up in bandages making it hard for the animal to stand. It takes a long time for them to come-to and when they do, they are given paper for cat litter. If they have normal cat litter and the litter gets into their casts, this could cause major irritation and infection. When I saw cats wake up and see what has happened to their legs, they try to remove the cats, they meow, and they knock over all of their food and liter. Pet owners have also reported a change in the cat's personality after declawing happens. However, pet owners who keep their cats indoors at all times, still go through with the procedure. But think about this: What if the cat runs away? What if it happens to go outside and needs its claws to defend itself? What if the pet owner abandons the declawed cat? How will it survive? Cats can learn. If they are given an alternative to furniture, like a scratch post, they learn to use it. There are also 'soft paws' which are plastic caps a pet owner can put on his or her cat. Personally, I just stick with the scratch post but caps are better than amputation/mutilation methods.

My question to you is: Are there any ways in which the declawing of cats can be defended? Along these lines, what is your take on amputating the tails of dogs?

Response to Kim and "Home Visits."

Response #17

In Kim's blog, she talks about pet ownership and how people should be required to follow certain rules and regulations not just when they adopt an animal but also when they buy their pets. Although no one can tell a person how to raise his or her pet, it should be necessary, for the safety and well being of the animal, to set guidelines and rules for the owner to follow no matter how they obtained the animal. Kim suggests all dogs should be required to of through some form of socialization like a school for dogs, specified dog parks, or training classes. Dogs should know basic commands like sit, stay, drop it, and lie town in order to keep them save and others as well. Dogs are social beings and enjoy interaction with other animals. This way, they will not be as aggressive. Dogs and other pets also need to be registered in case of animal abuse situations. It's important to be aware of which households own pets so, if need be, professionals can step in if the dog or other pet is being abused. Also, Kim said dogs and cats should have identification microchips in case they get lost so they can be returned to their owners. Lastly, she brings up the idea of home visits where people go into a home where there are pets and make sure they have adequate food, shelter, care, and a place to get exercise. She then asked, "Do you feel that home visits should be allowed, encouraged, banned or discouraged and why?"

I also think it is peculiar that organizations where animals are adopted require home visits but when people attain pets from stores or through another means, home visits aren't even thought about. Some people see home visits as an invasion of privacy and unnecessary. However, according to PETA, there were 1,880 cruelty cases last year and the majority of those were against dogs. If going into a person's home once a year or every six months, just to make sure the dog is in good hands, could potentially save a life, then it is worth it. When I worked at the veterinary clinic in my hometown for two years, I saw abused animals but, as employees, we did not have the right to say anything since we did not know the actual situation. People abuse their pets without even knowing it by over or underfeeding, by keeping them in cages all day while they are at work, by not letting their dogs out enough times during their day, or by smacking their animals as a way to discipline them. I encourage home visits; I think they should be mandatory and I think every pet should be licensed. Animal cruelty is serious but often overlooked. Any effort to decrease the number of abused animals in the world is something I'll stand behind.

My question to you is: Do you think home visits and other regulations/guide lines should apply only to dog owners or should they be required for all sorts of other pets like cats, rabbits, hamsters, and even fish?

Response to "People Who Look Like Their Dogs."

Response #16

In Becky's blog, she talks about the theory of developmental attraction and the reward-theory of attraction. She brought up the point that humans are attracted to the things that reward us most. She used the example of how people who have the same views stick together because it is comforting and rewarding to know someone is on the same level as you. This also effects dog ownership because people choose animals that relate to them most. Becky said it is a proven fact that people choose dogs they tend to look like. There are over a hundred different dog breeds and people choose their pets based on a number of reasons; how they look, how active they are, how big or small, how long their lifespan is, if they do well with children, and so on. Becky asks, "If you own a dog, what made you choose that breed? Also, do you think you look like your dog?"

I worked at a veterinary clinic for two years so I saw a lot of different breeds of dogs. I found that most owners seemed to resemble their pets and the ones that resembled them the most had the greatest amount of love and respect towards their animal. My family owns a Pomeranian (not my choice). I look nothing like a Pomeranian (thank you very much) but he technically isn't my dog. If I were to choose a dog breed, I would own a Siberian Husky because their active and playful, free-spirited, an d beautiful. I also have a soft spot for West Highland White Terriers. They are just too adorable. Working with all different kinds of dogs made me realize something; mixed breeds and shelter dogs are generally much better animals. Every purebred dog has a certain genetic problem but they tend to be valued more. The dogs rescued and brought to the vets were usually "mutts" but they were the kindest and most deserving animals. They just wanted a home. The purebreds I worked with were much more testy and mean but the mixed breed dogs were just the opposite. If I were recommending a new dog to a person, I would say it is best to go to a shelter and rescue a mixed-breed dog because they are the ones that seem to appreciate life much more than any sole breed does. But this is just my experience.

Another interesting idea I have thought about while daydreaming at the vets is how everyone truly does resemble a certain breed of dog. Based on how the dog looks and acts, every person in my life seems to have a dog counterpart. Something else I have learned is the stereotype pit-bulls and rottweilers have of being viscous animals is false. I knew the kindest rottweiler pair and a handful of other kind pit-bulls but I always thought they were scary animals. I think the way the media portrays these dogs is really negative. Any dog can be mean if his or her owner trains it that way or treats it poorly. Another topic about the treatment of animals is how people dress up their dogs to make them look like miniature humans. Pet stores have a huge variety of clothing for dogs but I wonder if this crosses a line of some sort. Animals aren't meant to be fashion statements. Do we dress up dogs to make them more human-like or to humiliate/torture them in the name of cuteness? I personally would never dress up a dog with human clothing but I want to know how you feel about the idea.

My question to you is: Is there a line being crossed when pet owners dress up their dogs to look like miniature humans? Is it wrong and unnatural to do this or is it just an innocent act, in your opinion? Why or why not?

Cute or just plain cruel?

Buying vs. Adopting

When a person goes to buy a dog, he or she has many options. That person can choose to rescue a dog from a shelter, buy a dog from a breeder, or buy the animal from a store. Clare Palmer, in chapter 77 of the reading, stated that 6 to 10 million dogs and 7 to 10 million cats were killed in pet shelters in the U.S. in 1990. Because of the massive amounts of breeding done in puppy mills and pet owners' failure to spay and neuter their pets has created an overpopulation of homeless and caged dogs and cats. If a person wants a certain breed of puppy and can't find it in a shelter even though twenty percent of animals in shelters are purebred, I see nothing wrong with going to a reputable breeder for the right dog. Because there are so many neglected animals in shelters, I encourage all pet owners to seek animals from these shelters before going to a breeder.

When I worked at the Veterinary Clinic in High School, there were a couple breeders in town who's dogs the Vet cared for. The puppies were treated well and given proper medical attention. If a person feels like spending hundreds of dollars on a certain breed then there is nothing wrong with going to a breeder of that dog. However, because of how unethical and cruel puppy mills are, I do not condone buying dogs from pet stores. Many people are oblivious as to what their puppy has gone through. It's important that a person knows who he or she is getting the dog from and what kind of life that dog previously lived.

No matter the animal, he or she does need a home, but buying him or her from a store supports the puppy mill business. Puppy mills are the same as factory farms for dogs. They are also called "commercial breeders" and their only purpose is to make a profit. Female dogs are bred over and over again and puppies are crammed into small cages all of the time. Although puppy mills are legal for licensed breeders, they allow the breeder to own several hundred or even a thousand dogs. All animals are kept in small cages and dogs are bred as much as possible in order to produce an enormous amount of puppies. The standards of puppy mills are set forth by the government but are not meant to ensure a good life for the dogs. They are set as bare minimum requirements for the animals. Puppy mill's breed about 4 million dogs a year. I know one person's choice to adopt instead of to buy a puppy will not make a difference and if everyone starts to do this, the puppies in the mills will be left without a home.

My question to you is: How can the problem of domestic animal overpopulation, ignorance of breeding, and the cruelty in puppy mills come to an end? Do you ever see this happening?

Response to "Wild Animals in Captivity."

Response #15

In Nicole's blog, she talks about her experience at a petting zoo and how she wondered in what ways the exotic animals reacted to their initial confinement. What was it like to be watched all day while everyone on the outside is looking in, Nicole asked. Farm animals and other domestic breeds are more likely to react positively to confinement since they already are. However, exotic wild animals get their complete freedom taken away from them. They are not meant to be behind bars. I'm not saying domestic animals are either but they react much better to losing the freedoms they once had since those freedoms were much smaller than the freedom wild animals are born into. Nicole talks about seeing baboons looking on desperately for a way out, owls and other birds not being able to fly, and wolves hiding in the corner while hundreds of people walked by. These animals seemed very bored and uncomfortable in their new unnatural habitat. Nicole says these animals are just not meant to be caged up. There is no way to find contentment for these locked up animals. Even though some would say these animals are safer locked up because predators can not get to them, in the wild, at least they would be able to act naturally and run or fly away if need be.

Then, Nicole relates this confinement with feminism, saying how women used to be seen as their husband's property a hundred years ago. Women were seen as passive things who "needed" protection and care. However, this would not fly nowadays, Nicole points out. Women fought this stereotypical idea of the passive female and refused to be locked up in the home when they could be making their own living. With freedom comes responsibility, but I can all humans and animals have a right to fend and protect themselves in all situations. Finally, Nicole asks, "Do you think filming animals in the wild is a breach of their privacy or is that just a human concept which non-humans do not care about?"

I think filming animals is better than keeping them locked up in zoos. It is impossible to really know what a non-human animal is thinking so invading their privacy may or may not be noticed by them, we really can't know. To me, zoos are like prisons. When people break the law, they get locked up. The worse the illegal act they performed, the more years they get sentenced. However, animals never do anything to deserve such treatment. When we go to zoos, people do not think the animals must have done something terrible to be locked away because they haven't. We don't really question the ethics of zoos; we just wonder through like the rest of the tourists. I think, because our society is so technologically advanced, it would be a great idea to create these zoo animals and make them as natural and real as we possibly can so no one can tell the difference. Of course, people would know because word would get out but at least they would be able to see these animals without really confining them. Another alternative is having people go through safari like replications or reserves where wild animals roam free. Or, placing cameras in the wild where animals may be could give humans an idea of how animals really act in the wild. I am not opposed to cameras in the wild as long as this stops zoos from confining animals. Filming anyone against their knowing is a breach to privacy but it is a much better alternative to zoos because no harm is done to the animals. There would need to be people in charge of monitoring and maintaining these cameras but it really could work, in my opinion.

My questions are: Why are people generally oblivious to the cruelty of confining animals in zoos and cages (like I was as a child and even before this class)? Do you think people are actually aware but choose to ignore when cruelty is taking place? Also, why don't people put themselves in the animals' situation more often? A lot would change.

Here is a picture I took at the zoo quite a few years back. Then, I didn't even take notice to how sad and desperate this animal looks. I was just excited about seeing animals I had only heard and read about. Now it's impossible to ignore how unhappy this animal is... like a prisoner.

Animals as Clothing.

Every year, millions of animals are killed for the clothing for their fur, wool, silk, and leather. "Whether they come from Chinese fur farms, Indian slaughterhouses, or the Australian outback, an immeasurable amount of suffering goes into every fur-trimmed jacket, leather belt, and wool sweater," according to PETA. Animals, like in slaughterhouses, are confined for their whole lives in small, dirty cages and the industry uses the cheapest method of killing these animals possible. More than half of the fur in the U.S. comes from China, where millions of dogs and cats are even killed for their fur and often the fur is mislabeled so people don't know what species of animal they are wearing. Leather is not just a byproduct of slaughterhouses but it is a growing industry. The meat industry relies on skin sales to keep business on the rise. It even accounts for 50% of the total byproduct of cattle. All animals who end up as belts or shoes suffer confinement, branding, unanesthetized castration, tail-docking, dehorning, and cruel treatment during transportation and slaughter.

People, and the fur industry, would like to see fur as just another fabric but it's actually the skin ripped and peeled off the backs of animals. In our culture and society, there is no reason to use animals for clothing. In other cultures where animals are hunted for food and used as clothing for survival is justifiable since they do not have alternatives. However, in industrialized countries, there is no reason for it. More often than not, people don't even realize they are wearing animal products; I know I have shoes with leather in them. I think it is important for everyone to be more aware of their purchases and how what they buy affects animals. If we choose to buy products that were made without harming animals, then companies would find alternatives. The first step is being aware of what we wear. Then follows change.

My question to you is: There are many alternatives (like synthetic materials) to using animals for leather, wool, fur, silk, etc. So, why does our culture still exploit animals for clothing aside from it being a lucrative business?

A leather jacket and a wool sweater? Really?

Humane Meat: An Oxymoron?

Sometimes, when I tell people I am opposed to the way the meat industry slaughters animals for food, they reply with the idea of choosing free range animals for consumption since they get to experience life and the outdoors. As the truth of how factory farms treat their animals surfaces to the public, more people are choosing organic foods and free range meat. Slaughterhouses kill animals while they are still conscious with the production line moving so fast no one knows what is actually being put in with the animal meat. Animals are confined to dark, small spaces and live their lives eating antibiotics and hormones so they grow twice as fast. Disease is not uncommon in such small spaces. A solution has been raised to stop supporting these big corporations and start buying free range meat which means the animals are free to graze the outdoors instead of being stuck in dark confinement. However, no matter how these animals are raised, they are still killed for our consumption so is one way really more humane than the other?

Another solution is to promote veganism all around which would mean no animal has to die for the needs of humans. Experts have found this choice more drastic since many people would refuse to give up their ways so free range animals it is. There is no true definition of "humane meat" and many people see this as an oxymoron. Different producers have their own humane standards to follow like labeling the meat "Certified Humane Raised and Handled." Some standards are larger cages or no cages, natural feed, less painful ways of slaughtering, and the end to practices like tail docking and debeaking. A recent study performed by the United Egg Producers found that three out of four American consumers would choose food products certified as humane and protecting animal's interests over those that do not. Also, humane regulations provided on a state level provides relief to millions of animals. Humane standards are a step towards more animal rights... and maybe eventually equality...

My question to you is: So, is humane meat an oxymoron? Do you think people are on the right track of setting more humane standards for the raising and killing of animals for food or do you think there is no difference how an animal is raised because it is killed in the end anyways?