Worst Pedicure

Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Is Santa Barbara interested in promoting animal welfare? Currently, Santa Barbara allows the inhumane declawing of cats. Declawing cats is not a “nail trim.”

Declawing is a surgical procedure in which the animal’s toes are amputated at the last joint. Cities in California which have passed legislation abolishing declawing are: Los Angeles, Santa Monica, San Francisco, Culver City, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Burbank and Berkeley.

Doesn’t Santa Barbara need to pass a resolution against this practice? If this is an issue that concerns you, contact members of the City Council to end these inhumane amputations.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

All veterinarians who will declaw cats for ignorant owners must have their licenses revoked permanently. This is a vile practice that is equivalent to cutting off a human finger at the first knuckle and calling it a manicure. That Santa Barbara still permits this cruel procedure is not surprising considering that they like to call themselves enlightened but prove over and over again how backward they are.

straw48sell (anonymous profile)
July 5, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While I totally agree that it's inhumane to declaw cats, if we're going to start banning procedures, why stop there? Is it not just as inhumane to mutilate certain breeds of dog by bobbing tails and/or ears a la dobermans and rottweilers? (Although it's not a disadvantage as far leaving the animal defenseless, I'm sure the dogs would prefer to remain unaltered if given the choice.)

And how about RFID chips - there's evidence that they not only cause cancer, the chips are often found encapsulated in tumor like a peach pit. Not trying to be a wise guy, just saying that animals are either chattel (property) or not - they can't be both property AND have rights too. Does your car have rights?

spiritwalker (anonymous profile)
July 5, 2013 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The issue addressed in my letter is declawing...not tail docking or ear cropping ... or circumcision.

I certainly don't approve of ear cropping and tail docking, and neither does the AVMA.

The risk of microchips is negligible according to the best science available:

Whether to microchip your animal should be based on a "risk versus benefit" basis.

My letter was not about debating microchips. It was about whether people have a right to mutilate their animals by amputating their toes to protect their furniture. And NO, I don't think that animals are chattel.

elsalambert (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2013 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Should this new law include circumcision?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2013 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do think it's weird to insert an artificial device that serves no medical purpose into a living thing.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2013 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said, I totally agree that it's inhumane to de-claw cats. My point (unlike some posters, I DO actually have a point) was that if your gong to pass a law banning mutilation of pets for superficial reasons, why stop with de-clawing?

As for RFID chips, since more than a few medical experts have reviewed the evidence and stated in no uncertain terms they would not want a chip implanted in their own body, there's no way I'd have one implanted in a pet I loved.

(I actually pay attention to my cat, and you know what he "told" me? He "said": "I don't want or need any shots, I don't want or need to be castrated, and I sure as heck don't want or need to be poked and prodded by some guy who'd be willing to amputate my toes for no medically necessary reason." The fact is that generations of cats live on the typical family farm without ever even imagining that vets exist, and they're just fine without all the "treatment".)

spiritwalker (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2013 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Elsa, I didn't realise that have an agenda, and it ONLY focuses on declawing cats. And I don't know how many cats are actually forced to undergo this procedure in SB each year, but I bet it's a really tiny number like maybe 5 or 10.

Whatever the amount, it's seems far more practical to ban all medically unnecessary procedures instead of passing a law that only protects kitty's toes - that's why I included the RFID chips and the tail and ear bobbing in my comments. I don't know why that would upset you to the point that you felt compelled to send me a snippy email instead of addressing the issue here - maybe you have me confused with someone else, but whatever your problem is, I sure hope you get over it.

And BTW, I don't know where you get the idea that the cancer risk from RFID is "negligible" - one study found the incidence of cancer was 10% - that sounds to me like a MUCH more serious problem than a few cats losing their toes.

spiritwalker (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those ten percent of cats who do get cancer, it's a serious problem.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, the study only involved mice - but the point is that RFID chips are presented to the public as a completely safe, benign way to identify pets, and the evidence proves otherwise.

Other studies have found lower rates of cancer, but they were not designed to test the safety of RFID - whatever the actual focus of those other studies, the researchers all seem to agree it's indisputable that the chips did cause the cancerous tumors.

spiritwalker (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its a really weird thing to do to a pet imho.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, if the chips didn't cause cancer, I actually think it would make sense for cats since I don't believe in putting a collar on them (danger of being hung if the collar gets caught on something).

Lompoc has an ordinance stating that male cats without some type of ID are "feral" and can be trapped and brought to the pound where they are subject to castration and possible euthanasia if not claimed in time. So I guess the options are possible hanging, cancer, castration and/or euthanasia - what a choice, huh?

spiritwalker (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a dumb waste of Lompoc's limited resources.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that my comment about chattel was not snark - my point was suposed to be that either animals have rights, or they don't. I just don't see how any fair minded person could think cats are worthy of protection but it's ok for doctors hack off a doberman's tail and ears.

spiritwalker (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would just like to see complete streets with bike lanes and sidewalks first.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd include human circumcision in that.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you support the movement to begin breeding genetically modified cats without claws?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2013 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: