Talk:Onychectomy

Comment

I've tried to clean this article up a bit, but there's a lot more that could be done by editors more knowledgeable than me. I've tried my best to keep to NPOV, but I'm conscious of the fact that I might not have succeeded, since declawing is something I really strongly dislike. The External links section could probably do with a mention of a pro-declawing site, but I'm not the person to add that.

One thing I would say, though, is that I am not exaggerating when I say that declawing is "almost universally considered cruel" in the UK; I've never seen a declawed cat, and never heard it spoken of positively by any cat owner here. Finally, it may be relevant that the great majority of cats in this country (90%, perhaps) are "outdoor cats"; unfortunately I have no hard figures, just as I have no hard figures for the prevalence of declawing in the US. Loganberry (Talk) 21:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Added "Canada" to the sentence stating that onychectomy is rather commonplace in the United States. That is also unfortunately true in Canada.Ramdrake 20:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

pro-wildlife campaigners

I noticed the additional mention of "pro-wildlife campaigners " who support declawing. I hope somebody can find a source for this. I think most opponents of declawing bans, aren't actually for declawing, they just don't support a law against it (many oppose animal legal rights), or want exceptions allowed for. I can't recall a specific organized group that actually lobbies *for* declawing. I would like to know their name. Generally, I think wild-life groups are more likely to call for cats to simply be kept indoors. If this perspective exists, we should show it. But, I'm not sure it exists in any organized way. --rob 13:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The only mention I found is at [1], but maybe that may give us a lead to find out more on that topic. Lupo 14:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yah, I found a lot of copies of that article with Google. It's the "defanging" part that seems utterly bizarre to me. I think there are some hunters who are violently hostile to cats. But those people usually resort (sadly) to killing cats, and don't take them to veterinarians to perform surgery, so they can be returned to the outdoors defanged and declawed. --rob 14:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How to File their Nails

Overfeed them on day of filing, then play with them using catnip & honeysuckle. When they become exausted from playing on a full stomache, they put up far less resistance to having their nails filed down with a regular nail file (wich is done by having them sit between your legs if they're struggling). When done, talk to kitty in sweet tone, pet profusely, & let them go to sleep.

An Argument for Declawing

I love cats. We rescued a young cat that was slated to be put down. We had a rented house at the time, and the cat promptly started shredding the carpet and other things. When we had her spayed, since she was already going to be under anesthesia, we also had her declawed rather than be forced to make her an outside kitty. Admitedly, I was unaware that declawing was such a drastic surgery (our vet didn't say much about it when we suggested it), but I was aware that indoor/outdoor cats live shorter lives than pure indoor cats, so I knew there were some benefits to our cat by getting to stay inside.

She has never been injured nor had parasites in the 6 years we have had her. She has never been sick (except for the occasional hairball) and has only had a brief encounter with fleas. She doesn't seem to miss her claws and we never have to worry about chasing her off of furniture or drapes though she is very playful. Her outdoor time is spent on the balcony which gives her a bird's eye view of the street and she loves it. She never even attempts to go outside downstairs and doesn't seem at all interested in doing so.

File:Kitty3.jpg

When I was a kid we had a lot of cats, none declawed, and they were always getting yelled at and chased off of things because they liked to shred stuff. There has to be something said for a cat not getting into trouble! She is a very happy, well contented kitty and doesn't have her claws. It is not the end of the world for a cat to be declawed; in fact, it could improve their lives if they are kept as indoor only pets. Of course, she didn't like going through the surgery or recovery (which took about a week and thankfully had no complications), but I am pretty certain she forgot all about it by now. From all my experience with cats, she is very much enjoying her life and is queen of the house--or at least thinks she is which is all that counts!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.187.174 (talk • contribs) 03:11, January 18, 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruser (talk • contribs) .

I just wanted to say I agree with you. My cats all have been declawed, and as far as I know their personalities haven't changed. They're all still very affectionate, and don't seem to be holding a grudge about it. I notice alot of anti-clawing sites mention destruction of furniture as a reason for people wanting to declaw their cats. They don't adress issues such as a small child, having a cat and being hurt by it's claws and frightened by it.

Or in general, someone who wants to enjoy their cat without worrying about being clawed. It's hard for me to understand that certian countries would consider Onychetomy as cruelty to animals. It's like a child getting their first shot, or a young person having to get their tonsils removed. It hurts, but you get over it. There really are alot of ways that cats wouldn't be able to enjoy being with their owners if they weren't declawed, like sleeping with them. Nobody wants to wake up with a clawed face.

I personally see more reasons for declawing if your cat is going to be a indoor cat, than not. As far as a cat being lost and not being able to defend themselves, I'm not sure about other countries. In the USA there is a company called Home Again which sells tiny chips you can put under your cat or dog's skin, so that if they are found and taken to a vet, the vet can scan them and their information of where they are from and who owns them will show up. So it would seem that if there is that technology, it'd be more rare that a pet would be lost for a long amount of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violet yoshi (talk • contribs) .

I disagree, I own three cats, none of which are declawed, and none of which scratch me or my furniture. They have a scratching post which they use, and the sleep with me every night. I really don't see any benefit to declawing, and there are definite disadvantages. 87.194.193.49 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruser and Violet Yoshi, it is possible to teach your cat not to scratch your furniture. My cat is five years old and he has never scratched the furniture, he's happy enough scratching the boxes I give him. Have you heard of Soft Claws? [2] They are nail caps for your cats, so that they keep their precious nails and you don't have to worry about them scratching your furniture, I never had to use Soft Claws but I believe they are a far better alternative than cutting off your cat's joints. Dionyseus 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT GET A FUCKING CAT IF YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT IS.

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ONE.

IF YOU USE FURNITURE AS AN EXCUSE, YOU'RE A HEARTLESS DOUCHE WHO SHOULDN'T BE NEAR ANY ANIMALS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.138.34 (talk • contribs) 07:58, August 8, 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's cruel to cut off an animal's fingers to save furnature & carpet that can be restored, replaced, or sprayed with a scent cats find repugnant. I mixed banana extract, orange extract, anise, cilantro, & oregano with water & sprayed it on my couch. My cats hate it & avoid the couch like rain. Worked on the houseplants too. ::might as well amputate the trigger fingers of everyone who owns a gun. They might shoot a hole in the carpet!::

Wow, what a mindblowingly immature response. And in all capitals. :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.181.184 (talk • contribs) 12:31, August 15, 2006 (UTC)

Well sorry, but I can't help myself when it comes to this kind of ludicrous bullshit. I seriously wonder how some of you can justify this kind of cruelty. Oh, saving money on furniture? Hooray, what a great reason! Seriously, so many people get pets but then can't take care of them and throw them away, and then some geniuses actually think that taking away a cat's most important "tool" is somehow... humane? Justified? I don't know, but it's just so insane. I am so, so, SO glad that Europe (and most of the civilized world) is beyond this kind of horrid mutilation. Sure, we have as many idiots as everyone else, but AT LEAST we don't condone this kind of maiming. And my mother and father, who are both vets, and pretty much all their colleagues are also horrified at how the US (and Canada?) can still allow this. It's just completely insane.

I have to wonder, however, whether we are to believe that it is more cruel to adopt and then declaw a cat or leave it to possibly be euthanized in a shelter. I have two wonderful, affectionate female cats that I adopted. They were abandoned by their previous guardian, who did take the time to tell the shelter that the cats had never so much as set paw outside. I have had cats before that I simply trained as kittens to scratch nothing but their post, and that was that. These two cats, however, are already three and a half years old- and someone did not teach them good kitty manners. They loved their post, yes. They also loved to scratch the walls, the carpet, and the furniture. That may not seem like a big deal to a lot of people, but those of us who rent know that it can cost you the place you live and damage your chances of getting a new one even though/unless you agree to get rid of your cat(s). Worse, they also liked to scratch me. If they wanted my attention when I walked by, they'd reach a paw out and slice my leg. Worst of all, they are quite picky about how they are petted, and would scratch my 5-year-old niece and 2-year-old nephew for not doing it right- and the kids were not being at all cruel or rough with them. I worked for months doing everything I could think of to discourage my cats' behavior. Spraying the furniture would temporarily deter them, but nothing could convince them to not scratch me or the kids or each other. I'd never heard of SoftClaws or anything like that, and my vet did not mention such an option when I relunctantly admitted that I was at the end of my rope w/ my cats' reign of destruction. In the end, I payed a hundred extra bucks to have the vet declaw my cats using a laser, which supposedly causes less pain and a shorter healing period. My cats' feet were clearly sore for a bit, but they've bounced back fine. Am I proud of my decision? Not particularly. Will I try SoftClaws if I am in such a situation again in the future? Yes. But was I wrong to choose to declaw my cats rather than return them to the shelter or let them loose outside? Or should I have left my cats at the shelter to take their chances on being adopted by someone who would never declaw them, no matter how destructive they were? Others may have a different opinion, but I believe I did the best thing for them that I knew to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.245.247 (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether opponents of onychectomy hold the same views, when it comes to castration/sterilization, just like with onychectomy you may claim, that the procedure will ultimately benefit the animal as well (they live longer, become calmer...) but it really is all about the comfort of the owner. And speaking of a cat's most important "tool", would you rather part with your fingernails or your balls? No question, what the most important "tool" there is for me. 89.247.67.28 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that there are some people over there who think that declawing is cruel, for instance: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=2644. Read that article VERY carefully, even if you don't agree with my opinions. Please.

Declawing perserves furniture, protects children, and prevents nasty scratches. But this isn't a forum to discuss our opinions. MafiaCapo 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's rather ironic... "here's my opinion, but this isn't the place for discussing opinions"! But yes, you're right: even with subjects that excite such strong views - especially with such subjects - we need to be careful to keep discussion here to points directly relevant to the article itself. Loganberry (Talk) 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

More irony: The call for keeping the discussion to relavant points directly below Mr. ALL CAPS and his anti-USA bombastic prose. I am amused, and reminded by no less than my dog-eared Third Edition of Strunk and White's Elements of Style "To air one's views gratuitously, however, is to imply that the demand for them is brisk, which may not be the case ..."

Speaking only for myself, the demand for anti-USA speech is not brisk, desired, or requested. Neither is the demand for personal attack and name-calling. While I encourage Wikipedians everywhere to please obtain and hold whatever opinions you may have about the USA and its citizens (or any other government on the planet for that matter), if all you have to contribute is hateful bombast, please follow one of our most cherished rights and traditions, and keep silent about it. Lowellt 14:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if all these people who say declawing cats is cruel.. I wonder if they eat meat. Because if they do then they are the biggest hypocrites I have ever met. Do you know how much pain and suffering animals go through to become a piece of meat? What, its okay to have those animals suffer all their lives so you can eat something tasty but its not okay for a cat to get a one time operation and then live a happy life with their caregivers?--ALars

72.38.181.135 02:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC

If you were annoyed by your child's crying, you would (I hope) be horrified at the suggestion that you cut out its tongue. We do not generally condone chopping of thieves hands to stop that behavior. However, it is apparently acceptable to mutilate your pet in order to protect drapes, couches, and your neglected children. If you cannot take the time to to explore the non-maiming methods of scratching control, cannot be bothered to train the animal, and cannot monitor your children to see that they are not being scractched, then you are not fit to be a pet owner. If you can produce for me one toddler who is mutilated as badly by a cat as a declawed cat is by a vet, I'll glady let you justify whatever torture you can think of. However, anti-neutering, anti-americanism and pro-veganism aside, the issue is whether you can justify forcing your pet to undergo an amputation which is WIDELY RECOGNIZED to be debilitating and painful on the grounds that you consider your furniture more important. If your baby can't live with a scratch so you maim your cat, that is good parenting and bad pet owning. Further, the fact that a declawed cat is happy doesn't prove that all declawed cats are happy or that he would not have been happier clawed. Statistically, declawed cats live shorter, more painful, and less natural lives than other indoor cats, and responsible pet owners do not take on a cat if they have to cut off its toes to live with it. My radical source is the American Humane Society.

---

Personally, when I get a cat someday, (the one I got now came declawed) I will either not care that it scratches my funiture, or get funiture made of materials that are comfortable, but the cat can scratch all day and not ruin. For those that are complaining about cats getting declawed, I'll say this; "WHO CARES!?!" It's not like they are coming into your home and declawing YOUR cats without your permission, so let them declaw their own cats and you just worry about your cats O.K.? Don't get me wrong, I also love cats, which is why I wouldn't care about my future cat messing up my funiture, and I would never get mine declawed, because that's what caring is all about, enjoying what other people would consider bad along with the good.24.118.227.213 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am personally against declawing because I feel it is mean, but I can see the other side of this story. If I had a cat that had a bad habit of scratching people in play, I would try everything to correct it, but if negative and positive reinforcement didn't work and it easily took off the Soft-Paws, I might consider declawing as a last resort. Please, before you post something obnoxious, please consider the other side of the story :) B katt 500 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If they could find a humane and/or reversible means of declawing cats, then this problem would be solved. However, it seems unlikely that anyone will bother to find such a procedure, just as unlikely as North America actually outlawing declawing.24.118.227.213 04:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They have. It's called Soft Paws, or merely nail clipping.B katt 500 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going for more of a permanent yet humane solution, rather than merely the temporary solution that soft paws and clipping provide. If a solution does not remove the problem forever, it is not actually a real solution.24.118.227.213 06:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Animal Welfare Bill (UK)

I wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month to ask them whether declawing for non-medical reasons would be outlawed by the Animal Welfare Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament. Here is the salient part of the response I received today:

At present, no Act specifically makes the declawing of cats an offence. However, Defra is not aware that it is carried out within the UK for anything other than therapeutic reasons.

However, the Animal Welfare Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, contains a provision to prohibit the mutilation of an animal. The declawing of cats is classed as a mutilation and therefore it will be explicitly banned under the Animal Welfare Bill, exept where it is done for therapeutic reasons.

I've added a short paragraph to the article reflecting this official position, which will of course need to be updated when and if - as seems almost certain - the Bill becomes law. Loganberry (Talk) 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

POV-check template

Much as I personally dislike this practice, this article reads as being very critical of it, and may not conform to WP:NPOV. --Ginkgo100 03:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The article states the facts. The facts don't support the practice being an acceptable one. NPOV isn't about giving one argument for for every one against, it's about giving the relevant facts without bias of reporting or language. There are simply very few facts on the 'pro' side. Rsynnott 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

New external links

I see that two new external links have been added. The "American Veterinary Medical Assocation Statement on Declawing" is a solid one, and should definitely be kept, but I was less than happy with the other (listed as "Is Declawing Really That Cruel?"). For one thing it repeats the tired old statement that it is legal under certain conditions for an Englishman to shoot a Welshman in Chester. This sort of casual assertion does not imply a well-checked and reliable source - while that law has not technically been repealed, it no longer offers any protection against a prosecution for murder, and so is effectively moribund. "Legal" is meaningless.

Secondly, and more importantly, it's a self-published Geocities site from an anonymous author, and the guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". (This may also apply to some of the anti-declawing sites, of course.) I think we should have a link to a pro-declawing (or indeed anti-anti-declawing) site, but I don't really think that one is a very good choice. A bit of searching dug up this page, which is also generally positive about the operation:

Declawing is probably the single most important surgical procedure (other than neutering/spaying) that will help insure a satisfactory relationship between the cat and its owner.

This site is from a named veterinary hospital, rather than an anonymous individual, and as such I think it is a more acceptable link for a Wikipedia article. Notwithstanding my personal views, it's a clear description from a verifiable source with checkable, relevant expertise, and as such I've substituted it for the less satisfactory Geocities article link. Loganberry (Talk) 22:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This one has got it backwards, an anonymous individual would be a more reliable source because, unless the hospital he's talking about doesn't perform declawing procedures, would have monetary incentive. Such a hospital would say declawing is good regardless of whether it is or not.24.118.227.213 11:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Other countries?

I'm intending to do a bit of cleanup on this article when I have a moment, and one of the things I certainly think would be sensible would be to have separate sections for North America and for Europe, since there's a clear split there in terms of atittudes to, and laws regarding, declawing - in North America there's a heated debate; in Europe hardly anyone is in favour. But does anyone have any information regarding the situation in other countries? Australia, Japan, South Africa, Brazil etc etc... it would be a valuable addition to the article if so. Loganberry (Talk) 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We now have a short list of countries where it's banned, but in most of those cases no sources have been given. WP:V requires better than a simple assertion; we need sources, otherwise those specific countries will have to go. Loganberry (Talk) 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor notation

"Many European countries prohibit or significantly restrict the practice, as do Australia, Brazil, Israel, New Zealand...." Israel not quite in Europe. Should it be rectified?

It reads all right to me - none of the other listed countries are in Europe either. The statement is partly about European countries and partly about other countries. -Joelmills 22:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Laser declawing

I notice this article is missing any information about laser declawing, wherein the nerve is killed by a laser, eliminating the need to amputate the claw itself. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you know about it and can provide sources, then by all means add it. It's not a type of declawing I know about, though I'm fairly sure it would still be illegal under the new legislation in the UK, since that prohibits "mutilation" rather than the specific act of amputation, and I suspect killing a nerve would count. Loganberry (Talk) 13:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed studies indicate laser declawing results in no less post-operative pain than declawing with a blade. I can cite if needed.

Why don't they just find a procedure that cuts the claw so that it's too short or dull to scratch anything and so that it can't grow back, but not painfully, solving both problems at once.24.118.227.213 11:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image request

Is it possible to find an image, preferably a side-on cutaway illustration of a cat's toe bones and claws - which would indicate exactly which portions of the anatomy are amputated and which remain? Even better would be an illustration that could demonstrate the change in stance required by the amputation. Kasreyn 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor rewrite

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to move the information on risks and side effects of declawing, found under the "Alternatives" section, to their own section? The stated purpose and "benefit" of the procedure - stopping scratching - is already clearly explained. I note that in the articles on other controversial surgeries and non-therapeutic procedures, there is usually a section detailing possible risks and drawbacks to the procedure. The information would probably belong in such a section more than where it is now. Kasreyn 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Drafts of new sections: Purpose and benefits, and Risks and drawbacks

I submit these here for discussion. I feel that most of the points here will be easily sourced, as I have read them in a great many places, so I'm not worrying about sourcing yet. (Thus for the time being, they are full of weasel words, so don't bother telling me that. Sources later.) First I want to hash out language and topic coverage. Feel free to make any comments needed.

Full disclosure: I work at a county Humane Society no-kill shelter, where I am responsible for about 70 homeless cats at any given time; I personally am adamantly opposed to the procedure and feel the United States should follow the EU's lead. Please let me know if you feel I violate WP:NPOV at any time. Kasreyn 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Purpose and benefits

The stated purpose of declawing is to prevent injury to pet owners and other pets, and to prevent damage to furniture through sharpening behavior. As the procedure involves the permanent removal of the claw, third phalanx, and connected tendons, it is highly effective at preventing scratching.

Benefits of declawing mostly accrue to the pet owner: prevention of injury to humans and other pets by cat scratches, and prevention of damage to furniture from sharpening behavior.

It is also stated, by supporters of the procedure including some veterinarians, that a secondary benefit of declawing is that it makes the cat more likely to remain an "indoor" cat for life (due, supporters claim, to the reduced frequency of declawed cats being relegated to "outdoor" status). It is widely recognized by both supporters and opponents of the procedure that "indoor" cats live longer, healthier lives due to decreased exposure to disease, accident, theft, and predators.

Risks and drawbacks

Opponents of the procedure claim that while onychectomy is effective in preventing scratching, there are long-term negative repercussions to the cat's health, as well as possible behavior changes which may result in the cat becoming unacceptable as a pet. Opponents also variously maintain either:

• that there are sufficient alternatives to declawing that render the benefit (eliminate scratching) moot, and that therefore concern for the cat's safety should be the chief concern; or
• that the benefit of preventing scratching behavior, even if there were no alternative methods, should never outweigh concern for the cat's health and happiness. Typically, these opponents believe that scratching behavior is fundamental to the cat's happiness and quality of life.

Opponents claim that while some veterinarians performing the procedure describe it as a minor operation, it is in fact a major one, involving ten (or more - see polydactyly) seperate amputations.

Among the various possible negative health and behavioral consequences claimed by opponents of the procedure are:

• Possibility of wound infection, death under anaesthetic, or other complications such as regrowth of vestigial claws and wound abcessation. Opponents of the procedure claim that onychectomy has a high complication rate.
• Chronic and recurrent pain, such as Phantom pain, which some believe the cat is unlikely to give any outward sign of.
• As cats are digitigrade (walk upon their toes rather than their soles), poor posture may develop (due to missing distal phalanges), leading to possible arthritis and other joint problems.
• Greater vulnerability to harm due to inability to protect itself in an outdoors environment (inability to climb or scratch). Even if a declawed cat's owner keeps it indoors, it may escape.
• Difficulty hunting prey in an outdoors environment (as claws are used to grasp and restrain prey for the killing bite).
• Difficulty or discomfort with using a litter box, leading (according to opponents) to a higher chance of the cat being abused, abandoned, or becoming an outdoor cat, where its declawed state makes it more vulnerable.
• Increased chance of biting behavior due to lack of other defensive means and/or loss of trust in owners or humans, again leading (according to opponents) to increased risk of abandonment, including euthanasia in a shelter.
• Decreased quality of life due to inability to perform natural stretching, scratching, kneading, and climbing behaviors. Animal behaviorists believe scratching also serves as a form of communication between cats, in the form of territorial marking and display, which would become unavailable to a declawed cat. Inability to balance (due to inability to grasp with claws) also prevents the cat from walking along ledges or high places safely.

The Cat Fanciers' Association (CFA) "perceives the declawing of cats (onychectomy ) and the severing of digital tendons (tendonectomy) to be elective surgical procedures which are without benefit to the cat. Because of the discomfort associated with any surgery and potential future behavioral or physical effects, CFA disapproves of routine declawing or tendonectomy surgery in lieu of alternative solutions to prevent household damage."[3]

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) takes the position that: "Cosmetic or non-therapeutic surgical procedures or amputations, such as ... declawing in large and domestic cats ... are inhumane. The suffering and disfigurement they cause are not offset by any benefits to the animals."[4]

Four-Paw Declawing

While it is much less common than the typical front-paw declawing, some veterinarians will perform declawing upon the hind paws as well. Opponents of declawing claim that this merely doubles the drawbacks of the procedure while adding no effective benefit to human or cat, as the hind claws are almost never used to damage furniture or scratch humans. Some veterinarians who will declaw the front paws refuse to declaw the hind ones.

Comments

Please make any comments here, to keep the section readable. Kasreyn 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, thank you very much for that excellent work. I want to stress that first because now I'm going to nit-pick a little! Though really I think the only significant problems I can see with what you've written are in terms of possible US (or at least NAm)-centricism, and I'm not sure that can be avoided. For example, your draft mentions "supporters of the procedure including some veterinarians". That statement would be misleading if applied to British vets, since the number here who support the procedure is negligible if not actually zero, and so the phrase would be meaningless. I'm also not sure (though I will happily stand corrected) that there is anything like enough consensus in Britain that indoor cats are healthier than outdoor ones for a phrase like "widely recognised". Most cats here are at least partially outdoor cats, and the lack of any natural predators probably counts for something. (Cars of course are another matter.) Loganberry (Talk) 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above, I'd like to see this text added. At the moment the article is almost entirely based around limited legal reference with respect to a few countries. Since North America's legal and social perspective with regards to the subject is clearly in the minority, it shouldn't be the basis or main subject of the main article. As long as the rest of the world's opinion is the majority and essentially de facto stance, as should the article's be with a nod to alternative points of view such as the US (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).

In addition to the above excellent contribution, the main Cat#Declawing article is considerably cleaner and more informative than the main article. Ideally if there's going to be a main article at all, the Cat content should be moved or at least replicated in some fashion on this page and at least some of the above suggested content added. The legal aspect should not be the predominant subject of the article. TygerTyger 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the above discussion, I wonder if the best course might be to create a seperate section for "North American Declawing Practices", to keep things clear and NPOV, with some of the information in the forgegoing suggested section. I would be careful about sourcing, though, as many of the so-called "benefits", and well as some of the risks, are not clearly bourne out by research. I think it is important to also address the profit motive involve in declawing. Some would say the only "benefit" of declawing is to the vet's bank account .WatchCat87 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal: A cat it more prone to mutilate itself with its rear paws than with its front paws.

Also, from the AMVA,..."# Scientific data do indicate that cats that have destructive clawing behavior are more likely to be euthanatized, or more readily relinquished, released, or abandoned, thereby contributing to the homeless cat population. Where scratching behavior is an issue as to whether or not a particular cat can remain as an acceptable household pet in a particular home, surgical onychectomy may be considered.

1. 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."

They also say vets should always discuss alternatives.

Additions to the "alternatives to declawing" section

I note that an anon editor has added quite a bit of material about tendonectomies. The added text certainly needs some editing: for one thing, it's not the "main alternative to declawing" in many countries, certainly not in the UK. (As a non-medically necessary surgical procedure, it, like declawing itself, is prohibited by the Animal Welfare Act.) I don't know enough about the procedure, though, to know whether the pros and cons listed are otherwise NPOV: it feels a bit too "pro" to me, but then I'm personally very "anti" so can't be sure whether that personal bias is getting in the way of a neutral assessment. Loganberry (Talk) 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the AMVA does NOT recommend tendonectomy as a surgical alternative to declawing. To my knowledge, tendonectomy is not genernal practiced in the US. I'm going to edit to main page to reflect this. WatchCat87 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why I reverted

I have reverted this edit on the following grounds:

• The additions are a copyright violation: much of the added text was copied word-for-word from this page with no assertion, let alone proof, that permission had been given to use that material. (Note that even some typos, such as "do not loose their litterbox instinct", were preserved in the added text.)

• On top of that, the added text is not written in an encyclopedic manner: it is, unsurprisingly given its origin, more of an advice guide for cat owners. It was also added as one huge paragraph, which would only be a minor problem on its own but adds to the sense that this text was not suitable for addition.

Loganberry (Talk) 23:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting, Loganberry. In addition to the copyright violation, there is also the question of POV. One important think to keep in mind, which may not be intuitive, especially to non-US users, is the US veterinarians must be considered financially interesting vendors of this dubious "service " rather that unbiased sources of information on it. I hope to post something some about how much money they make from it. (In the billions of dollas per year nationwide; tens of thousands per vet.)

In any case, we already have a link to a "generic" version of this text (from a database of articles for US vets to use on their websites) in the Links section.

WatchCat87 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

There are lots of redundant points in the intro and the text that follows after the "contents" box. I'll try and see whether I can correct some of it... --130.92.9.56 10:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. I hope this version is easier to read than the previous version. The contents have not changed, but some redundancies have been eliminated. --130.92.9.56 10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why I deleted from "Veterinary Aspects"

I just delete or moved quite a bit from the "Veterinary Aspects" section. I moved some down to "Legal status, North America" because they spoke to the ethical, not medical, question. The rest I deleted because is was unsourced or poorly sourced and seemed to be trying to present "standard" declawing practices. Sounder sources will tell you there are none, which I've stated in the article. I'd like to see this section be filled out again, this time with sound sources and coverage of the variety of practices. For example, there are at least three types of cutting tools in common use and two or three cutting techniques. Post-op pain control (or not) is all over the map. Some vets only declaw kittens; other vets never declaw kittens. Etc. I'm willing to add this material myself as my wiki time allows. 01:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I've been meaning to address the poor sourcing this article had, and it is much better now. I did alter the formatting of the references a little. --Joelmills 02:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly has the prevalence of declawing in North America to do with "Veterinary Aspects"? IMO, this section should discuss indications, surgical techniques, risks etc, but not geographical distribution, which has a remote relation to veterinary science at best. --130.92.9.57 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the top, an anti-declawing userbox

I'm not sure that this is really appropriate to have on this talk page at all, but for now I'm just going to move it to the bottom. It was previously at the top, making this whole talk page appear to be against declawing. I assume it was added so people could add it to their user pages if they wished. Frankly, there is a lot of discussion on this page unrelated to improving this article, and it needs to be cleaned up. I'm not sure what policy is on this, however. --Joelmills 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it altogether. You're quite right--it's completely inappropriate. WP:CSD#T1 was created to keep opinionated userboxes out of template space, but advertising them on article talk pages is worse. If it reappears please remove it or let an administrator know at WP:AN/I. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of opionions not supported by peer-reviewed literature

I have deleted certain statements from the section Delclawing Practices: United States because they promoted certain ethical opinions, not legal aspects as is the topic of the rest of this section. POV comments were rife in this article. I have also deleted the tag from a statement that there is no literature to support a claim by onchectomy opponents, since one can never prove a negative. --Zeamays (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• One - You've deleted cited ethical opinions/arguments. There is an argument to move them to say a section on 'Ethical arguments against declawing' but deleting them wholesale is not appropiate.
• Two. My version "Although the practice continues in North America, declawing is considered an act of animal cruelty in other countries (see "Legal Status" below)." vs yours "Although common in North America where it is widely accepted, declawing is considered an act of animal cruelty in certain other regions (see "Legal Status" below)." - where is your evidence that the practice is "common" and "widely accepted"? - these statements are totally inappropiate - they are weasel wording and unsourced. If you want them to stay you must provide sources documenting these claims.
• Three - removing the 'citation needed' tag saying you can't prove a negative doesn't hold water. You need to cite a source saying there is no scientific evidence - the article readers can't just accept that as gospel.
• I will restore and move the ethical arguments to their own section and add 'citation needed' tags to all the controversial statements, but will not otherwise revert your edits for the moment. Let's see if we can resolve this editing dispute. Exxolon (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have edited my comments while I was still making changes. I hope that the following statement is still clear: I have deleted certain statements from the section Delclawing Practices: United States because they promoted certain ethical opinions, not legal aspects as is the topic of the rest of this section. POV comments were rife in this article. I have also deleted the tag from an introductory statement that there is no literature to support a claim by onchectomy opponents and have provided a reference. --Zeamays (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re you point #2: Since the article already provides a citation that only a few out of 1000s of legal jurisdictions in the USA have a problem with this surgical operation, and since 25% of the housecats are declawed, also documented, your point is invalid. --Zeamays (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Add the reference to the sentence with the tag as well then. I'd dispute that 25%=common/widely. That still makes 75% un-declawed - that's "common" and "widely" in my book. The legal status doesn't really demonstrate it. The fact that few jurisdictions have a law against something does not automatically equal that the practice is common in said jurisdictions. Exxolon (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More widely - we should summarise all relevant sourced and cited ethical arguments for and against this practice. WP:NPOV does not mean we can't include POVs, only that all POVs are fairly represented in the article. There is no reason not to and plenty of precedent for including sections on 'Arguments for delclawing' and 'Arguments against declawing' with neutrally worded summaries of the positions of various groups with proper sourcing and citations. Exxolon (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm wondering if that lead photo is really required. After all, since cats' claws are retractable, a declawed paw looks pretty much the same as a fully-clawed paw at rest. Besides that, the image is kind of small and blurry. Someone earlier suggested a diagram showing what gets removed during the procedure that would probably be far more helpful. howcheng {chat} 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)