home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / rec / pets / cats / 15542 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-30  |  1.2 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!zabriskie.berkeley.edu!spp
  2. From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
  3. Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats
  4. Subject: Re: Defense
  5. Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:03:30 GMT
  6. Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
  7. Lines: 19
  8. Message-ID: <1hsrq2INNm3t@agate.berkeley.edu>
  9. References: <nlp-291292172524@192.156.173.150> <1992Dec30.134445.1446@emr1.emr.ca>
  10. NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu
  11.  
  12. In article <1992Dec30.134445.1446@emr1.emr.ca> thiessen@emr1.emr.ca (Tracy Thiessen) writes:
  13. >And finally, while I've heard that some veterinarians
  14. >consider declawing "barbaric", I wonder how these same
  15. >vets feel about putting down a perfectly healthy, good
  16. >natured animal because it has destroyed thousands of 
  17. >dollars worth of furniture? 
  18.  
  19. That's also completely barbaric.  Don't keep a pet unless
  20. you are willing to be responsible for its wellbeing,
  21. regardless of anything having to do with your furniture.
  22.  
  23.  
  24. > Doug's vet advocates declawing for this sole reason.
  25.  
  26. Just because some vet can persuade people
  27. to declaw their cats with a phony reason like that
  28. does not make it any more justifiable.  
  29.  
  30. Steve
  31.