Snips & Snails & Puppy Dog Tails

cats claws can hurt children they must be declawed if they are to be pets in a house, they have the ability to draw blood from adults when they are angry speaking from experience so declawing them should be mandatory by the state at least not the other way around for safety issues.

if they are to be pets they will fall into heat that is why the host of the price is right always says have your pets spaid or neutured because when they over breed it causes the shelters to euthanize them because they cannot house and feed them all.

imo no animal should be made a pet because it violates their liberty but if they are forced to be pets these precautions are neccessary. but that is another issue altogether.

 

Most serial killers start off killing animals first. It fallows that people who “own” these animals but do not respect them as living beings are of the same caliber and capable of doing something similar to their own kind.

Conservative in particular have shown them selves time and again to lack empathy for other people, the have no problem with stealing from the poor or letting the sick die, so how could they possible care about harming an animal?

In contrast, many animal owner see their pet nearly on par with them selves, as much a part of their families as their own children. To people like that, (and a majority, I might add,) they are NOT “just” animals, so they are willing to set better standard for their existence.

If you only see them as just animals, then you should try seeing them as your own children and then ask your self your question. Would it be OK to surgically put Spock ears on your baby?

 

Note that I didn't use any kind of 'argument' in my response. I was merely relating what I have seen with my own eyes many times. Again, keep in mind that my pups' tails are docked to a medium length. Your opinion of it being traumatic may hold true for those that cut the tail to a nub...it seems that it would be more likely to be painful, but I don't know having never had a dog's tail docked in such a way.

 

I totally disagree with this, I grew up on a ranch where people dumped their unwanted kittens, so there were at least 32 cats all around me as a baby, and I only got scratched 1 time by accident when the cat fell on me.

If anyone has a cat and also has a baby, and they feel there is a reason to worry about the baby, then they should get rid of the cat. Studies have shown a declawed cat is far more insecure and more likely to bite, so what are you going to do, pull its teeth too?

Cat’s are like people, they have individual personalities, and it’s the owners job to judge how safe or dangerous it is around their family.

I do agree with you on that, it is far more humane to get animals fixed when they are young so they do not over breed and suffer the rutting issues that cause stress and other problems.

I personally have a great deal of guilt for owning pets in the first place, because their lives will never be natural, so it is my responsibility to make sure they are as comfortable as possible. They help my mom a lot, she has always had pets, but I have no plans to get any more when the ones I have are gone. They are living beings, and just like us they have a desire to procreate and fulfill their instinctual needs, and we block them form doing any of that in captivity.

 

agreed but with all respect if there is a baby in the house no amount of good judgement can protect from an attack, recently here on the news a jack russel whom had years of friendly experiences with kids as the family pet bit the ears off a baby and nipped at it for a torturous hour to two while the wife was asleep due to illness which was still irresponsible of her but the husband came home from work saw what was happening then took the dog outside and shot it in the head.

if there are kids in the house and a pet must be there the teeth should be pulled, the claws should be removed and the animal should be rendered totally harmless because they are after all beasts who belong in the wild and can't be fully trusted.

 

Right. Somebody starts off docking dog tails and before you know it, they got a fat chick in a dug out pit in their basement. Any other brilliant insights you want to share?

 

The fact that many countries impose prison sentences on anyone caught docking a dogs tail is absurd. A hefty fine might be appropriate, but jailtime is definitely Big Brother overkill.

 

It makes me wonder when animals started getting more rights than people.

 

It's that liberal thing. Remember the farmers in California who lost their entire crops because the govt shut off their water supply to save some minnow? Next will be rights for plants if we don't keep an eye on 'em.

 

Life is a risk. From the day we are born we are at risk of harm and death from any number of environmental factors. Aside from health issues the leading cause of death among infants is Unintentional Injury 946 3.37% * Suffocation 636 2.27% * MV Traffic 120 0.43% * Drowning 63 0.22% * Fire/burn 40 0.14% * Poisoning 26 0.09% * Natural/ Environment 18 0.06% * Fall 16 0.06%

Animals are not even on the list.

If you are going to make a law to mutilate an animal because there is a baby in the house, then make it a law against having any pets in such a household to begin with, don’t propagate animal cruelty, based on irrational fear of animals. The parents are probably a greater risk for the kids than most animals anyway.

 

the state has the responsibility to mitigate risks for us because we cannot manage them on our own, after thinking it over it is not an example of a nanny state because it should be mandated by the state to alter pets only in instances where they can pose a threat

no one will support the government banning pets altogether so these concessions are neccessary.

 

Why do you agitators have to use words like "mutilate" and "torture"? Is the actual truth not making your point so you have to resort to hyperbole? You have yet to demonstrate by evidence beyond your inane assertions that animals are being harmed. It's what you do on the Left, isn't it? Look for more victims whether they're actual victims or not. You take down Christmas trees and crosses before even asking if a Muslim or Jew was offended. And now you pick the perfect victim, beloved pets who can't even tell you they aren't being harmed in any way, so it kinda works out for you. You'll take a chicken, happy in its coop, and set it free in the forest to be eaten within hours. You'll 'liberate' a lobster and set it free in a fresh water pond so it can slowly suffocate. You're like Elmyra Duff on crack, all the animos in the forest terrified you'll want to be their friend. So who exactly are you representing and who made it your business?

 

I find that attitude staggering, but I guess I have to remember that it is just a cultural difference. My kids both grew from babies up in a house with a number of cats, none of which were ever declawed, and they survived perfectly well. If they did something to the cat that made the cat scratch them, they learned not to do that to the cat again! The children have suffered no long term consequences (and indeed it is that experience of growing up with cats and dogs that has led my daughter to her current university studies in Zoology, so the odd scratch obviously hasn't put her off!).

 

Fair comment, and noted, but the basic issue still comes back to whether it is actually necessary or beneficial to put them through it anyway. I should also have said that it is certainly a good thing that you seem have it done by a vet - many dog breeders don't, and that can obviously increase the risks.

 

Why on earth was a dog left unattended with a baby for hours? There's no excuse for that, and it is the responsibility of the owner (and parent) to ensure that it doesn't happen. There is no reason at all why it should - dogs and small children should never be left unattended together.

 

If you bring animals into your home, you accept that they are animals, and you accept what comes with that - it is what they are. If you have long-haired dogs, you accept that you will have some hair around your home. If you have puppies, you accept that they will do their business on the floor and chew up a few things until they are trained not to. If you have cats, you accept that they might scratch things. If anything important gets scratched or chewed or otherwise damaged by them, that's your fault for leaving it accessible to them.

If a person can't accept those risks of having an animal in their home, or don't feel those risks are outweighed by the benefits of sharing their home life with them, then they just shouldn't have pets. It's as simple as that. That's fine - I know lots of people who don't have pets for that kind of reason. No problem with that, but personally I find those risks of damage to the occasional thing to be well worth the benefits of having pets.

It must just be that cultural thing again, I guess - it seems like pets in the US are considered to be closer to inanimate possessions (and less important than expensive inanimate possessions at that!) than they are to being companion beings and part of the family, and I find that attitude very difficult to comprehend from the cultural context of the society I come from.

 

i played with a friends cat once and was a bit too rough in hindsight and it suddenly turned around when i grabbed its tail and scratched me with its sharp claws which started to bleed a little bit, keep in mind i am adult so kids can be even worst with pets and they are not mature enough to be gentle with them so they are at higher risk to be harmed if the animal loses its temperment due to a bit of rough housing.

 

people sometimes think animals are like them and they won't hurt a child but its not true they are wild beasts even though they may be tamed a bit. it is that false sense of security that the state must protect them from and allow people to make animals harmless.

 

There are new procedures for declawing that cause little or no pain for the cats. Of course, as you say, current owners are fine with their non-declawed cats. But, how many cats are going unhomed because there are many people who will not tolerate the damage a cat can do with its front claws? Are they better off being killed by a shelter for lack of adoption than being declawed and living long, happy lives?

 

Well, mutilation does seem like an appropriate term for an unnecessary surgical procedure. If you did it to a human, wouldn't it be considered mutilation?

It's called having a conscience. Experiencing sympathy. You might not understand.

 

I sometimes think you guys sit up at night trying to think of ways to torture plants.

 

My children (as I was, of course) were scratched many times by our cats - it did them no 'harm'. They had a little scratch that stung a little for a moment, and healed within a day or so, and in doing so they learned not to do whatever it was to the cat that initiated the tiny scratch (or to expect a similar little scratch if and when they did do it again). A tiny bit of blood from a tiny little scratch does not 'harm' children at all - children shouldn't be wrapped up in cotton wool and utterly insulated from anything in the world that could potentially give them a tiny little scratch like that, for heaven's sake - that's pathetic! They are perfectly capable of surviving such tiny little scratches with no lasting ill effects, and it's all part of the vital learning process of both treating other living creatures (including humans) with a bit of respect, and of realising that a tiny little scratch like that isn't actually life-threatening (or even particularly painful really), so they should just get up, laugh it off (especially because it was usually entirely their own fault), and get on with things instead of sitting down and crying about it.

Of course, now they are older, my kids have learned those lessons well. Of course, they still play regularly with the cat (they only have one left now), and still get scratched by him from time to time, and it still does them no 'harm' at all. I can assure you that they would be utterly disgusted and revolted by any suggestion that their cats should have been mutilated to remove their claws, just so that they wouldn't ever get such tiny little scratches. It's doubly ridiculous, since kids will have far, far worse 'injuries' of no significance at all from general bumping into things, or falling over when playing, or whatever - they get all manner of bumps and bruises and grazes and scratches in childhood (as we all did), and a cat scratch is by no means the most serious of the completely insignificant little scrapes they will have!

 

If a person is not prepared to take the risks of owning an animal alongside the benefits, then they shouldn't own an animal. It's really that simple. Declawing a cat is completely unnecessary. Yes, ultimately the cat might scratch the carpet, but then it might pee on it too - what are they going to do about that, put it in nappies/daipers constantly??!! Those who can't accept such risks should not have cats - they are not treating the cat with sufficient respect as a living creature and part of their family life, but expecting it to just be some kind of inanimate ornament or plaything to be treated just as they please.

There is a problem with an over-population of cats (and dogs) in the world, of course, but he way to address that is through educating owners about not breeding unwanted litters, not to expect people who aren't prepared to put up with the small risks of owning a cat to own cats and have bits cut off them to protect their precious things. If the things are that precious, and so much more precious than the animals in their home and in their lives, they have their priorities badly wrong.

Children can also damage things, but in having kids peoply acknowledge and accept those risks. In having pet animals as a part of your family, you have to do the same thing.

 

Maybe someone should put a cork in that cats bottom, while he still only in the scratching and peeing stage.

jus say'n