City Council has yet to solve the big problems of domestic violence, homelessness, panhandling, shoplifting, and vandalism even though its secret Public Safety Select Committee addressed them for three years. Ducking its failures, Mayor Eric Enriquez has refused to affirm or deny its existence in response to my two inquiries. Meanwhile, the city is waiting with bated breath for Councilor Bencomo to propose “real police reform.” But Council, having dealt with the shopping cart crisis, now turns to the critical problem of animal control.
According to Justin Garcia’s account in the Las Cruces Bulletin (18 Nov), “The city of Las Cruces will consider revising its animal control laws.” In a work session, the city considered doing so. Among them, one provision would limit declawing and punish residents found guilty of a first-time violation of it (a second violation would prohibit the owner from pet, not just cat, ownership).
I understand that people have strong opinions about declawing cats. Some think that declawing is painful, though no more so than any other veterinarian surgery; is cruel because it hampers their flights from dogs or coyotes, on the erroneous presumption that declawed cats cannot climb trees; and seriously disadvantages them in fights with other, often feral, cats. I suspect that their response adds an excess of sentimentality to the sincerity and strength of their opinions, which are, however, no guide to truth.
In light of my experience with cats, I question whether people who oppose declawing cats have experience with declawed cats. (I speak of declawing front feet only; back feet must remain intact for climbing and defense). My first wife and I had about a dozen cats at one time or another, several at one time. None of them damaged furniture with scratching or wounded each other in tussles; we declawed none of them. The woman who became my second wife had only one cat, but he had made her couch look like a dish of spaghetti without the meatballs and tomato sauce. We agreed that I would get Joplin declawed before she moved in with me. He was just fine afterwards and recovered nicely atop my computer desk, from which height he met and befriended my three large dogs. When it came time for him to go outside (he had lived only in an apartment), he had no trouble climbing the dogwoods and fruit trees, and catching the birds, in our yard and, later, after we moved west, lizards, mice, and gophers in the field behind our house.
Given indications of damage to be done, I had a second cat, Edgar, declawed; again, no problems. When I got a third cat, Cleo, a feisty calico, I did not initially get her declawed. Edgar and she became best of friends, but their tussles resulted in wounds to Edgar’s face and neck. Several veterinarian bills later, I incurred another for declawing Cleo; again, no problem. Yet even declawed, Cleo is a terror when aroused. She did not hesitate to attack and drive away three 70- or 80-pound family dogs when they annoyed her during some rough-housing; they learned to respect her space. Years later, when I brought a new dog home from the pound, she promptly and, as it turned out, rightly attacked her. She sensed that she was a cat-killer, scared her into retreat, and thus persuaded me to return her. She quickly put the substitute in her place. The coyote who thinks to make a meal of her will be in for one big surprise.
The point of relating my cat-declawing experiences is to show that the decision whether to declaw a cat depends on the proclivities of the cat, whether it tears curtains or upholstery, or whether it wounds other household cats in tussles with them. An ordinance prohibiting declawing cats cannot be suitable for all situations and prevents owners from basing decisions on their circumstances and concerns.
I see this provision in a larger context. Governments at all levels too often meddle in the private lives of citizens, even when no public good is served. It shows that City Council lacks members sensitive to the appropriate, respective roles and responsibilities of government and citizens. I would bet that councilors supporting this intrusive provision limiting or outlawing declawing cats object strenuously to government telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, and when. Of course, an ordinance restricting or curtailing declawing cats is far from laws restricting or curtailing abortions, but the principle underlying both is the same: government intrusion into private lives and infringement of citizens’ freedom to make decisions which do not involve cruelty to other living beings, do not affect other citizens, and otherwise have no public consequences. It is never time for governments and do-gooders to meddle in the private lives of citizens. It is time for City Council to try to solve the big problems which affect the quality of life in Las Cruces.
No comments:
Post a Comment