CVMA will try to overturn anti-declaw law

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

zuzu22@webtv.net - 18 Jan 2005 21:21 GMT

PLEASE FORWARD AND CROSS-POST

The California Veterinary Medical Association, in their current
newsletter has threatened to sue to overturn hard-earned gains by animal
advocates in California, specifically the ground-breaking anti-declaw
law enacted by the city of West Hollywood.

The CVMA also hopes to thwart those animal welfare supporters working to
stop other practices such as ear cropping and tail docking.

Tell the CVMA that their position is archaic and inhumane. Declawing,
ear cropping, and tail docking are illegal in a growing number of
countries. Austria, the birthplace of Governor Schwarzenegger,
recently banned all of these procedures. The British colleagues of
California's veterinarians, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
(RCVS), call these practices "mutilation."

This is an excerpt from the RCVS Mutilations Report:

Removal of claws: It is not acceptable if carried out for the
convenience of the owner. The removal of claws, particularly those which
are weight-bearing, to preclude damage to furnishings is not acceptable.

Cropping of ears: This procedure is unacceptable in that it is carried
out for reasons of fashion only, with no benefit to the dog.

Write, call, fax, and e-mail the CVMA. Tell them that people should
be able to determine what is cruel and what is acceptable in their own
communities. Contact your vets and ask them if they perform these
procedures. If they do, tell them that you will be taking your
business to a humane vet who follows the standards of the vets in the
rest of the civilized world.

Contact CVMA:

Valerie Fenstermaker, Executive Director
vfenstermaker@cvma.net

By Mail:
1400 River Park Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95815

By Phone:      916-649-0599
By Fax:           916-646-9156
By Email:        staff@cvma.net

Megan

Signature

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

Reply to this Message

Nomen Nescio - 19 Jan 2005 07:20 GMT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: zuzu22@webtv.net

>Write, call, fax, and e-mail the CVMA.? Tell them that people should
>be able to determine what is cruel and what is acceptable in their own
>communities.

Maybe we should take this one step further. Let's "Tell them
that people should be able to determine what is cruel and what is
acceptable in their own" LIVES. Oops, I guess that would result in
the law being overturned, also.
Do we really need more laws and regulations from a small group of
loudmouth "morality nazi's" to impose their personal views on everyone
else? How would you feel if some community passed a law that all
cats MUST BE DECLAWED for the safety of the community. After all,
if it will save one child from losing an eye, it must be a good law. Right?
But if that is the will of the community and you believe that "people should
be able to determine what is cruel and what is acceptable in their own
communities." then you would support that law. Right?
Please, don't take this wrong. I truly believe your heart is in the right place,
but I also think that your head is somewhat up your wazoo. It's the attitude
that has killed thousands of women with backroom abortions, put people
in jail for 20 years for having one marijuana seed in their pocket, and allowed
the KKK to lynch "dem upity naygurz" in the southern US. It's the attitude
that's put mothers in jail for spanking their bratty kid in the supermarket,
gotten kids expelled from school for posession of Aspirin, and cost good
people their careers because some loony bitch felt that seeing her boss
eat a hot dog at lunch was "sexual harassment". It's the attitude that has
resulted in Granny getting strip searched at the airport while Abdul and
Mohammed walk through unchecked. It's the reason I couldn't help my
neighbor out last week and pick her kid up at school 'cause I had my "evil
gun" with me and wouldn't risk 10 years in jail by taking it on school property.

What we really need is a "sanity test" in the law. That being said, I think
senseless declawing, or ear cropping, would pass the "sanity test" and be
a reasonable candidate for prohibition. But, unfortunately, most laws don't
get much thought before being passed. Should a vet be fined or jailed for
removing deformed claws, and who decides if there is a medical need? What
punishment....$10 fine or life in prison? These things would all have to be worked
out and pass the "sanity test". And let me say that I have been in
West Hollywood and it is not exactly a "hotbed" of sanity. I've not read the "West
Hollywood" law, have you?

> Contact your vets and ask them if they perform these
>procedures.? If they do, tell them that you will be taking your
>business to a humane vet

Now this is the type of activism that has my full support. If, for every declaw
that a vet does they lose 10 long term customers, this proceedure will stop
very quickly. Vote with your dollars. It's still the most powerful persuader. But,
unfortunately, it requires people to think and act. Far too many people are quite
happy living in their ignorant little bubble.

With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke.
- --Will Rogers--

`Personally, I have always felt the best doctor in the world is the Veterinarian. He can't ask his patients what's the matter. He's just got to know.'
- --Will Rogers--

Reply to this Message

Steve G - 19 Jan 2005 18:54 GMT

(...)

> Do we really need more laws and regulations from a small group of
> loudmouth "morality nazi's" to impose their personal views on everyone
> else? How would you feel if some community passed a law that all
> cats MUST BE DECLAWED for the safety of the community. After all,
> if it will save one child from losing an eye, it must be a good law. Right?

No. The main point is that declawing has NO positive issues, other than
those of convenience for the owner. Indeed, your example above has the
personal responsibility issues basically arse-about-face; it's the
child (or parent's) responsibility to behave appropriately around the
cat. If a child 'loses an eye' (has this ever happened?) through a
cat's swipe, then I'm afraid it's the humans in the act who have failed
to take responsibility. Avoiding such responsibility by chopping the
cat's toes of is not the action of a good social libertarian.

> But if that is the will of the community and you believe that "people should
> be able to determine what is cruel and what is acceptable in their own
> communities." then you would support that law. Right?

There are limits.

> Please, don't take this wrong. I truly believe your heart is in the right place,
> but I also think that your head is somewhat up your wazoo. It's the attitude
> that has killed thousands of women with backroom abortions, put people
> in jail for 20 years for having one marijuana seed in their pocket

(...)

> It's the attitude that has
> resulted in Granny getting strip searched at the airport while Abdul and
> Mohammed walk through unchecked. It's the reason I couldn't help my
> neighbor out last week and pick her kid up at school 'cause I had my "evil
> gun" with me and wouldn't risk 10 years in jail by taking it on school property.

Buy one box of hyperbole, get the second ABSOLUTELY FREE! Anyway, I
suppose you wanted your gun on school property in case one of those
damn kids tried to take you out? Or maybe a freak passing vampire
rabbit might need stopping?

Anyway, equating an anti-declaw law with the issues you raise above is
simply inane. In the above cases, there are underlying strong moral
debates at hand, as well as issues of morality, faith and more besides.
Indeed, there may be no 'objective' answers as to whether (e.g.)
abortion in wrong or right - depends so much on subjective factors.

However, amputating your cat's toes ain't really amenable to these
types of debate. It is objectively (and measurably) bad.

Now, I agree with social libertarian view and values. However, the
underlying text for me is 'do no harm'. So, do what you like, as long
as it does not harm others. Declawing harms. It is not a part of any
social libertarian discussion.

> What we really need is a "sanity test" in the law. That being said, I think
> senseless declawing, or ear cropping, would pass the "sanity test" and be
> a reasonable candidate for prohibition. But, unfortunately, most laws don't
> get much thought before being passed. Should a vet be fined or jailed for
> removing deformed claws, and who decides if there is a medical need?

No-one suggests that a declaw law would be a blanket ban on declawing.
An anti-declaw law would still allow for declawing as a necessary
medical procedure. For example, you cannot - AFAIK - remove your cat's
eyes as an elective procedure, but this could be carried out through
medical necessity.

Or would you allow de-eyeing as an elective procedure, in your
philosophy?

(...)

> Now this is the type of activism that has my full support. If, for every declaw
> that a vet does they lose 10 long term customers, this proceedure will stop
> very quickly. Vote with your dollars. It's still the most powerful persuader. But,
> unfortunately, it requires people to think and act. Far too many people are quite
> happy living in their ignorant little bubble.

Nice in theory, but in reality most vets will declaw, so you might be
it inconvenient to impossible to take your business elsewhere.

Steve.

Reply to this Message

Nomen Nescio - 20 Jan 2005 07:30 GMT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Steve G" <news@stevethepsycho.co.uk>

>> How would you feel if some community passed a law that all
>> cats MUST BE DECLAWED for the safety of the community. After all,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>to take responsibility. Avoiding such responsibility by chopping the
>cat's toes of is not the action of a good social libertarian.

I'm afraid that you've totally missed my point. I'm trying to say that laws,
even with the best of intent, are not always "good" laws. I'll even go as
far as saying that most of them are not. Intent, and result, are not usually
the same. Many time stupidity is the cause, sometimes it's outright
deception. Being from the UK, you may not have heard of a set of laws
quickly passed by Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attack that was given
the cute title of "The Patriot Act". The problem is that it had nothing to do
with "patriotism" in that it overruled many US constitutional protections,
including the authorization of (formerly) illegal search and seizure, invasion
of privacy, unlawful detention, and stretched the definition of cruel and unusual
punishment. This was simply the use of 9/11 to enact repressive laws that would
not have possibly been accepted at another time. And the term "Patriot Act"
was just the sales pitch to get support from people that were too stupid to
realize what the real agenda was.

>Buy one box of hyperbole, get the second ABSOLUTELY FREE! Anyway, I
>suppose you wanted your gun on school property in case one of those
>damn kids tried to take you out? Or maybe a freak passing vampire
>rabbit might need stopping?

Thank you for making that statement because it shows quite clearly the
ignorant mentality that allows stupid laws to pass. So let me elaborate on
that:
I hold a license to carry concealed weapons in half the States in this country,
and have carried a gun for 30+ years. I am also licensed to own and carry
machine guns.
Now what does that mean? It means that I've been photographed, fingerprinted,
psychologically screened, and investigated by local police, state police, FBI,
NSA, and even Interpol, and been trained in safe gun handling and defensive
handgun techniques.
Now, in the entire United States, in the entire history of the United States, has
there been even ONE case of a person licensed to carry concealed weapons
EVER unlawfully firing their weapon at a school. NO! NEVER! NOT ONCE!
So why would there be a law banning lawfully owned, and lawfully carried,
firearms on school grounds? Ignorance? Irrational fear? Stupidity? Hidden agendas?
Or all of the above?
OK, so in the case I mentioned about picking up a friend's kid at school, why
would I want to bring a gun on school grounds? Simple! And I'll bet you never
considered this possibility which further shows the lack of thought on your part,
and shows how brainless laws get passed.
The reason was....Because I already had my gun with me! Duh!
I was not at home when she called to ask me to swing by the school on my
way home and pick up her son. This would have been a quick detour of less
than 5 minutes. No Problem! But because I could not bring my lawfully owned
and lawfully carried gun to the school, I would have had to drive 1/2 hour home,
unload and lock up the gun (5 min), drive 40 min back to the school (by then
he would have been standing outside in the cold for 45 min), pick him up, drive
1/2 hour to his house, and then back home. Not exactly a quick detour anymore.
But because of a stupid and useless law, a single mother had to leave an
important business meeting early (not a real good career move) to pick up her
son where I could have done it with a minor inconvenience.
Do you really believe that did anything to improve the safety of schools?
If you can't understand the ridiculousness of that, then you deserve to live in the
socialist country that you live in.
And, interestingly enough, I happened to catch this bit of news today:

"Brits Demand The Right To Defend Home Against Burglars

An overwhelming number of Britons believe they should have the right to
protect their home and family against intruders, a crime study reveals
today.

On the day that the Householder Protection Bill is due to be introduced in
Parliament, the study from Virgin Money Insurance found that a massive 99
per cent of people believe they should have the right to defend their home
and family against burglars and intruders."

Damn, Is it really illegal for you to defend your family against home invasion.
What do you do.......Make them tea? And is that before or after they rape
your wife? :-)

>No-one suggests that a declaw law would be a blanket ban on declawing.

But it can easily turn out that way, Intentionally, or accidentally!
Keep in mind that the US Constitution has been around for over 200 years
and lawyers and judges are still debating what it REALLY means.

>For example, you cannot - AFAIK - remove your cat's
>eyes as an elective procedure, but this could be carried out through
>medical necessity.

I would hazard a guess that it may be be legal to do so, electively, in
most states. At least implicitly. There may be other laws that, by legal
interpretation (again lawyers and judges), could prevent this. But that case
is so clearly wrong that no vet would ever do it.
Declawing, while I am personally against it, is still a rather gray area. And
there is so much fanatical rhetoric being thrown around about the subject,
that it's awfully hard to separate the extremist BS from real facts.

And BTW, you might want to change your handle. It's kinda hard to take
someone who calls himself "Stevethepsycho" seriously.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Ben Franklin

Reply to this Message

Steve G - 20 Jan 2005 17:58 GMT

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Steve G" <news@stevethepsycho.co.uk>

(...)

> I'm afraid that you've totally missed my point. I'm trying to say that laws,
> even with the best of intent, are not always "good" laws.

So, because 'bad' laws exist, you are happy to chuck the baby out with
the bathwater and stop any potentially worthwhile laws, just in case
they Go Bad. Hmm.

> Intent, and result, are not usually
> the same. Many time stupidity is the cause, sometimes it's outright
> deception. Being from the UK, you may not have heard of a set of laws
> quickly passed by Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attack that was given
> the cute title of "The Patriot Act".

Living in the US, I am well aware of The Patriot Act. Plus most UK
citzens are well aware of events elsewhere in the world - can you say
the same of yourself?

(...)

> not have possibly been accepted at another time. And the term "Patriot Act"
> was just the sales pitch to get support from people that were too stupid to
> realize what the real agenda was.

I'm almost afraid to ask you what the 'real agenda' was...

> >Buy one box of hyperbole, get the second ABSOLUTELY FREE! Anyway, I
> >suppose you wanted your gun on school property in case one of those
> >damn kids tried to take you out?

(...)

> Thank you for making that statement because it shows quite clearly the
> ignorant mentality that allows stupid laws to pass.

Perhaps. Then again, I am not the one equating anti-declaw laws with
anti-abortion laws, with laws that allowed the KKK to survive, and with
'Granny getting strip searched at the airport while Abdul and Mohammed
walk through unchecked'. At least you didn't Godwinise, but I imagine
it wasn't far away.

Perspective isn't just a set of converging lines.

> I hold a license to carry concealed weapons in half the States in this country,
> and have carried a gun for 30+ years. I am also licensed to own and carry
> machine guns.
> Now what does that mean?

Lots of possibilities:

- You have a job that requires being armed?
- You are a hunter?
- You are a sport-shooter?
- You need to carry a Big Tool so that you feel good about yourself?
- You are full of fear and paranoia?
- You are a metal fetishist?

> defensive handgun techniques.

Heh.

(...)

> So why would there be a law banning lawfully owned, and lawfully carried,
> firearms on school grounds? Ignorance? Irrational fear? Stupidity? Hidden agendas?
> Or all of the above?

Well, my agenda isn't hidden.

> OK, so in the case I mentioned about picking up a friend's kid at school, why
> would I want to bring a gun on school grounds? Simple! And I'll bet you never
> considered this possibility which further shows the lack of thought on your
> part, and shows how brainless laws get passed.

You lost that bet, then.

> The reason was....Because I already had my gun with me! Duh!
> I was not at home when she called to ask me to swing by the school on my
> way home and pick up her son. (...)

I am not going to get into the specifics of your individual case. There
are some situations where IMO having your weapon 'on you' would be
acceptable (to me) if you were on school property. However, there are
many qualifiers here and frankly I doubt you care for my qualifiers;
nor do I care for your anarcho-libertarian paranoia. Such is life.

> If you can't understand the ridiculousness of that, then you deserve to live in
> the socialist country that you live in.

I don't think the USA is all that socialist, certainly no more than the
UK.

But then again, perhaps you think the UK is socialist? Ah yes, those
damn pinko liberal lefties - gosh, the UK's practically Communist!

Plus, when I lived in the UK, I was quite happy to be there. I mean,
what a hardship to live in a free, capitalist society, where healthcare
is available to all, and where there is - IME - less red tape and fewer
legal impositions on day-to-day living than the US.

> And, interestingly enough, I happened to catch this bit of news today:

(...)

> Damn, Is it really illegal for you to defend your family against home invasion.

No.

> What do you do.......Make them tea?

Of course.

> And is that before or after they rape your wife? :-)

During. It's more efficient that way.

> >No-one suggests that a declaw law would be a blanket ban on declawing.
>
> But it can easily turn out that way, Intentionally, or accidentally!

So, because there's a possibility that the law could be applied
incorrectly, you would pass no law. And with no law, the amputations
roll on.

(...)

> Declawing, while I am personally against it, is still a rather gray area. And
> there is so much fanatical rhetoric being thrown around about the subject,
> that it's awfully hard to separate the extremist BS from real facts.

Not so gray - AFAIK, no-one has ever shown *any* benefits are conferred
on a cat when it is declawed. It is also absolutely undeniable that at
*best* the amputation will cause pain. At worst, there are many
possible complications. I agree that much 'extremist BS' is thrown
around, but the application of a bit of the ol' grey matter, and we
find it's quite easy to separate out the wheat and chaff.

> And BTW, you might want to change your handle. It's kinda hard to take
> someone who calls himself "Stevethepsycho" seriously.

Ah the irony, being advised on identity by 'Nomen Nescio', the
unarchived...

Steve.

Reply to this Message

Nomen Nescio - 20 Jan 2005 21:50 GMT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Steve G" <news@stevethepsycho.co.uk>

>So, because 'bad' laws exist, you are happy to chuck the baby out with
>the bathwater and stop any potentially worthwhile laws, just in case
>they Go Bad. Hmm.

To continue the analogy, if the bathwater is making people ill, that may be the
best option.
You assume that all laws are created with the best of intent, I don't subscribe
to that opinion. You also assume that they are carefully thought out. Again,
that's not what I've seen. And once a "bad" law is in place, it's real tough to
get rid of it.
I have not read the text of the "West Hollywood" law. And I don't know the reason
why the CVMA wants it overturned. But it MAY have nothing to do with CVMA
being pro-declaw.

>I'm almost afraid to ask you what the 'real agenda' was...

You should be! Asking questions like that could get you on a list that you
wouldn't want to be on. Thanks to the "Patriot Act".

>> Now what does that mean?
>
>Lots of possibilities:
>
>- You have a job that requires being armed?

Nope

>- You are a hunter?

Yes

>- You are a sport-shooter?

Nope

>- You need to carry a Big Tool so that you feel good about yourself?

My wife thinks I do. Even when I don't have a gun. :-)

>- You are full of fear and paranoia?

Not at all. I'm armed.

>- You are a metal fetishist?

I'm a mechanical engineer. That's a job requirement.

>So, because there's a possibility that the law could be applied
>incorrectly, you would pass no law.

That's just common sense.
Just like it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than it is to convict 1
innocent person.

>Not so gray - AFAIK, no-one has ever shown *any* benefits are conferred
>on a cat when it is declawed. It is also absolutely undeniable that at
>*best* the amputation will cause pain.

The same thoughts could be applied to facelifts and breast implants. But
I will admit that it's a loose argument since I've never heard a cat express
a desire to be declawed.

>Ah the irony, being advised on identity by 'Nomen Nescio', the
>unarchived...

and the unspammed.

Reply to this Message

Steve G - 24 Jan 2005 23:33 GMT

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Steve G" <news@stevethepsycho.co.uk>

(...)

> You assume that all laws are created with the best of intent,

No I don't.

> I don't
> subscribe to that opinion. You also assume that they are carefully

thought

> out.

Nope.

(...)

> I have not read the text of the "West Hollywood" law. And I don't know the
> reason why the CVMA wants it overturned. But it MAY have nothing to

do with

> CVMA being pro-declaw.

It may. But more like it may have something to do with lost revenue.

>From the CVMA wesite:

"Protecting your right to practice by opposing cat declaw ban"

(...)

> >So, because there's a possibility that the law could be applied
> >incorrectly, you would pass no law.
>
> That's just common sense.

Only if you believe there should be no laws.

(...)

> >Not so gray - AFAIK, no-one has ever shown *any* benefits are conferred
> >on a cat when it is declawed. It is also absolutely undeniable that at
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I will admit that it's a loose argument since I've never heard a cat express
> a desire to be declawed.

Well, you've just said why your analogy doesn't work.

> >Ah the irony, being advised on identity by 'Nomen Nescio', the
> >unarchived...
> and the unspammed.

As am I.
S.

Reply to this Message

PawsForThought - 19 Jan 2005 14:08 GMT

>From: zuzu22@webtv.net

>The California Veterinary Medical Association, in their current
>newsletter has threatened to sue to overturn hard-earned gains by animal
>advocates in California, specifically the ground-breaking anti-declaw
>law enacted by the city of West Hollywood.

Bastards!
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread: