I wish to reply to Dr. Joanne Carlson’s recent letter, “Scratch misguided legislation that would ban declawing cats.” As a practising veterinarian and the founder and director of the veterinarian-run nonprofit Paw Project, the world’s largest organization devoted solely to ending declawing, I totally assist HB 1533, which can prohibit declawing in Illinois.
Declawing isn’t some type of specialised manicure that solely a veterinarian can do. It is amputation (de-knuckling) of a cat’s toe bones that include the claws. This process gives no profit to the cat, and as reported in peer-reviewed veterinary journals, has been confirmed irrefutably to trigger life-long lameness and behavioral issues in lots of declawed cats.
SEND LETTERS TO: [email protected]. We need to hear from our readers. To be thought of for publication, letters should embrace your full identify, your neighborhood or hometown and a telephone quantity for verification functions. Letters ought to be a most of roughly 375 phrases.
The public, which believes veterinarians ought to primarily be involved with the well-being of animals, is puzzled to see the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA) and American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) opposing laws that will ban this archaic and dangerous apply.
The ISVMA opines that by declawing a cat, they’re giving it a home and defending it from euthanasia, however there is no such thing as a proof their hypothesis is legitimate. A peer-reviewed examine revealed within the veterinary literature, from British Columbia, which banned declawing in 2018, discovered no enhance within the variety of cats surrendered to shelters because the ban was enacted.
Likewise, in all cities in California which have banned declawing, with legal guidelines courting again as much as 20 years, relinquishment of cats to shelters really has decreased after enactment of the bans. Local authorities say due to the bans, there are fewer declawed cats exhibiting behaviors like biting and litter field avoidance which are recognized to result in relinquishment.
The American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) states, “There is no current peer-reviewed data definitively proving that cats with destructive behavior are more likely to be euthanized, abandoned or relinquished. The decision of whether or not to declaw should not be impacted by these considerations.”
Without skilled veterinary organizations taking positions in opposition to declawing, many veterinarians are guilted or pressured into performing unethical surgical procedures by their human purchasers or employers.
And with out laws banning the process, pet house owners merely store round till they discover a less-compassionate veterinarian prepared to do it. Despite Dr. Carlson’s declare, there’s completely no proof declawing has turn out to be “rare.” The most recent articles within the veterinary literature report that 21% to 24% of cats owned within the United States are declawed.
The ISVMA’s and the AVMA’s failure to sentence declawing harms the veterinarian’s repute as caring advocates for animals. It is price noting that declawing isn’t carried out in a lot of the world, the place it has lengthy been unlawful or thought of unethical by the veterinary occupation. There aren’t any “medical exceptions for human health” in these international locations; certainly there are immunocompromised, anti-coagulated or diabetic folks residing there.
It is crucial that these within the veterinary occupation unite to make each cheap effort to guard animals from avoidable ache and struggling. I sincerely hope Illinois follows the lead of New York and Maryland by ending the merciless and archaic apply of declawing.
Jennifer Conrad, DVM, founder and director, Paw Project
Guns rights aren’t sacred
I’ve a 5-year-old granddaughter who’s comfortable, artistic and as mild a human being as I’ve ever recognized. She already has discovered the fundamentals of studying and math and will probably be beginning kindergarten within the fall. However, it’s sickening to assume that one of many first classes she will probably be taught is an lively shooter drill. This is the brand new, insane American norm.
Republicans have fallen again on their mantra that mass shootings aren’t a gun downside however a psychological well being concern. If that’s their rationale, then don’t enable these with psychological well being points to purchase a gun or, within the case of Nashville, seven weapons.
Owning weapons isn’t a sacred, irrevocable proper. Rights might be forfeited. You can lose your proper to drive a automobile in case you are not bodily or mentally capable of, or convicted of drunk driving. You lose the appropriate to vote in the event you commit a felony.
How tough is it for these folks to not join the dots in terms of weapons? Does nobody see the hypocrisy when U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles, whose district consists of the Nashville faculty website of a recent mass taking pictures, in some way deems it correct to ship a household Christmas card, celebrating the delivery of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, posing his household, together with underage youngsters, with weapons?
Republicans are anti-abortion, however it’s apparent that their idea of defending that youngster ends at delivery. Their hypocrisy has gone past any semblance of widespread sense and human decency.
Tom Smoucha, Arlington Heights
Justice Thomas following Scalia in taking free journey
For 20 years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas acquired undisclosed luxurious journey and lodging from Harlan Crow, a Republican billionaire. Not to fret as a result of Thomas claimed he was suggested “by colleagues and others in the judiciary” that he needn’t disclose these luxurious holidays.
He should have been suggested by his outdated buddy, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was infamous for accepting reportedly 258 sponsored journeys from 2004 to 2014. When Scalia died in 2016, he was staying at no cost at a luxurious west Texas looking lodge owned by a businessman whose firm had just lately had a matter earlier than the Supreme Court.
Thomas says now he’ll disclose not less than a part of the worth of free journeys he accepts from Crow.
Now? After 20 years?
Bob Barth, Edgewater
