As a regular Catblogger, I get to read a bunch of other sites from people who love their cats like I do. I am still coping with the loss of Hudson and wish desperately that he was still around. Let me share with you a little story about him.
When I first got Hudson, I fell deeply in love with him. I had always been a dog person and considered Hudson an act of suitability rather than companionship. I was pleasantly wrong. He was so cute I swore no harm would ever come to him, including that awful act of declawing. How could any human mutilate an animal like that solely for their own convenience?
Then he shredded my brand new couch.
I mean, I had scratching posts, some with catnip, toys, carpet, etc. He tore up my damn couch instead.
Adios claws.
Now, I've been severely browbeaten by many people regarding my choice (Bueller's front paws met the same fate). What kills me is that these same people have their cats 'fixed'. For some odd reason, it is perfectly acceptable to remove some of a cat's plumbing but not their claws. What gives?
Maybe pain? When I had Hudson fixed, and this was before the "Hey, Nice Couch" incident, he was miserable for a week. Kept licking himself more than normal. Claws? 4 days of minor limping and he was golden. Poor Boo got it both at the same time.
It's not like either cat missed their claws. Hudson would regularly scratch at anything he could. Not having cajones actually changes a cat's behavior.
So, can any anti-declawing person give me a solid reason why fixing is acceptable but declawing isn't? I'm still at a loss why some people consider me a minion of satan for my declawing sins...
rolled out on
Monday, September 27, 2004 9:29 AM