Requiring it is more evil than the act itself, if you ask me. There's absolutely no reason for it to be mandatory.Originally Posted by FelixTM
Requiring it is more evil than the act itself, if you ask me. There's absolutely no reason for it to be mandatory.
Not that I really agree with it, but maybe it's to stop cat fights?
If that were the case why would it be mandatory for single cat households?
Apartments claim that it's either to
A) Protect furniture or carpeting
B) To protect visitors
But both of those are absurd. Carpeting naturally wears, cats can be trained not to use carpeting or furniture, and there are other methods like SoftPaws and trimming.
Protecting visitors can be accomplished by requiring renter's insurance with the appropriate protection and making it the responsibility of the renter, which is anyhow. SoftPaws can again prevent the majority of issues there as well.
I'm sorry but this prompt is ridiculous. Even you admit that you didn't choose choice A or B because you found the rules stupid and ridiculous. So you did what most people do and chose option C: broke the rules by offering bribery money to the people in charge.
Even though you did criticize their reasoning, apparently this holds true to some weight as you stated that offering the money appeased them as a "security deposit" to protect the apartment complex from a possibly untrained pet.
If a pet is so endearing then it is a natural choice to choose an option C: get a lawyer, a petition, or a possible protest. To believe there are only two choices to any social problem in life is an absolute lie and is nothing more than being a false dichotomy.
Last edited by Swerve; 2009-12-19 at 03:53 PM.
If I could pick another option, I just would refuse to move anywhere that didn't like my pets.
I think Id pick option , because chances are options A and B are not the only chances.
If anything putting up the pet for adoption is still a better way because people still adopt animals from shelters even at that age.
Anyways I wouldnt declaw my cats at all since cats live a betterlife when they have access to outdoors.
Hardly a far cry.
If I asked you, "Given the option, would you rather live with your parents or on your own?" and you say, "That's ridiculous, I could choose to live out on the streets, why are you limiting my options?" It completely destroys the point of the poll. Given the two evils, which would you choose?
I guess you might as well throw out public polling when there are always options E, G, F, Z, and BB.
I say putting up the pets for adoption is worse. You know that they have a good home with you, and you can't guarantee that with a no-kill shelter. Declawing them, while still mutilation, still affords a comfortable, long indoor life.
Mm I didn't declaw my cat, he was great, My little brother was born about a year after I got him, and my cat would put up with anything my brother did, pullling his tail, kicking him, sitting on him, and managed, claws and all.
I voted for Shelters, since they put them in a completely new environment and after 8 years of being with you, they may have trouble adapting to new cats and other animals in general. Depends on the cats personalities I suppose, my cat would flip out if he saw another cat..
Sure they have foster carers and what not but the cats themselves may pine for there old owners, then when there adopted theres the risk that they get declawed or the new owners discover they don't like the cats, and hand them back and they must once again sit and wait.
I would declaw my cat, if he was still alive. I'd of taken him with me if I moved, because he was wonderful.
Studies have shown anywhere between 10%-30% of all the feline participants declawed had developed behavior problems. Depending on the location from which they were removed, around 10% of the participants had also shown signs of lameness in their paws. While the studies' exact percentages may be subject to question, there's no denying that (if you wish to believe) little fraction who have been negatively effected by the procedure.
Source: I love cats (especially my own) and read a lot about them, and I've volunteered once-to-twice a week at a local animal shelter for several years.
I'm sorry. I wasn't looking at the thread with emphasis on the survey as a statistics tool but rather a social discussion like most threads.
I'm gonna declaw my kids. Don't want them tearing up the furnitur.
"What would you do IF" has been the basis of debate & discussion since the dawn of time. Hypothetical situations are one way in which we learn about ourselves and each other. If you don't find it discussion worthy, stay out and stop dragging the post off topic.
That can be easily prevented with barely any training. A month of double sided tape on your furniture is enough to give them an aversion to touching most of it.
I wonder if I can explain it off as religious reasons...
Maybe if you were circumcising them like good little Jew kitties
For me, declawing the cat. Personally, my cats have tended to get out, and in both areas i have lived, there are usually coyotes around. In fact, my grandmas cat had gotten out and either killed by a coyote or a stray dog, and she was declawed. I felt that if she had her front claws still, she would have had at least a fighting chance of not ending up dead.
That is why i still wont have my cat declawed at all.
Posting Permissions
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks