Denver declawing ordinance would hurt some cats
In his book “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,” economist Thomas Sowell describes an insight he gained while he was an undergraduate at Harvard. After the young Sowell had enthusiastically listed the benefits of a favorite public policy proposal, his professor asked “And then what will happen?” over and over until Sowell began to see the unintended consequences that would surely follow.
He writes, “Simple as this little exercise might seem, it went further than most economic discussions about policies on a wide range of issues. Most thinking stops at stage one.”
When lawmakers stop at stage-one thinking and don’t anticipate what happens next, the consequences are often worse than the problem the policy was intended to solve in the first place. Thus the road paved with good intentions leads to Prohibition crime syndicates, home building on flood plains backed by cheap government insurance, decrepit housing projects, and endless military involvement in faraway places.
Earlier this week, Denver City Council committee members engaged in stage-one thinking when they approved a ban on cat declawing within the city limits with little exception. The full council will take up the proposed ordinance early next month. If approved, Denver would join eight cities in California with similar prohibitions on the procedure.
Proponents argue that declawing is unnecessary and inhumane. Declawing is actually detoeing since the veterinarian must amputate part of the bone along with the claw, or in the case of tendonectomy, cut the tendon that extends the claw. The procedures are painful and can leave cats with lingering pain. Roughly a quarter of U.S. domestic cats are declawed.
Unlike most other medical procedures, declawing is not done for the good of the animal but for the benefit of the owner who does not want scratched furniture, curtains or arms. Like debarking a dog, declawing a cat is a physical alteration made to correct an annoying behavior.
Over my lifetime, I’ve had three cats. None of them were declawed. Instead I trimmed their nails, provided a scratching post, and yelled a lot. They’d flash that “I’ll just wait until you leave the room, lady” look and that was that. I personally oppose declawing.
That said, the Denver City Council would be shortsighted to ban it. The ordinance could actually hurt the animals it is designed to protect.
Proponents assume that if they outlaw declawing, cat owners will simply not do it. True, some Denver residents will respond this way. Others, however, will go to a vet in the suburbs. Still others will choose not to adopt a cat or to relinquish a cat to a shelter if they are unable to control the scratching behavior.
According to petfinder.com there are 139,729 cats in and around Denver animal shelters that need a home. The noise, confinement, and proximity to unfamiliar animals and people make shelter life nearly unbearable for cats; and for far too many the way out is not to a loving home. Thousands of shelter cats in Colorado are euthanized each year.
A declaw prohibition would not pose a major deterrent to cat ownership, but it would affect the lives of some cats for the worse. A cat is better off declawed and in a home than in a shelter or put down.
As with debarking, declawing should be a last resort after owners have tried other behavior modification techniques. The option should nevertheless remain open for the sake of cats that will not have a home without it. The Denver City Council should consider the long-term consequences of a declaw ban and reject it.