Two years ago, our oldest cat died. A year ago, so did our second. Both were elderly; their deaths were sad, but not unexpected. They're buried together in the woods in our backyard.
Four weeks ago, we decided it was time to have cats around again. We visited several local shelters and finally adopted a pair of three-month-old female kittens: a feisty short-hair calico and an affectionate black domestic longhair with extra toes on its front feet.
We believe in adopting from shelters rather than buying purebreds for both humanitarian and economic reasons. While we've always been sort of opposed to declawing — my wife calls it "cutting off their fingers at the first knuckle" — we reluctantly decided to have them declawed because we both work and wouldn't be able to spend the necessary time teaching them not to shred the furniture.
What floored me was the cost. The adoption fee for each cat was $150 plus tax. That included a bunch of veterinary care prior to adoption, plus free microchipping and spaying afterward. Both had colds — a common ailment in shelters, where animals live in close proximity to each other — so a vet visit and some antibiotics cost $50. Declawing was another $200 apiece - no charge for the extra toes. They also got their distemper boosters. Four weeks in, and we've invested more than $800 in these two "free" cats.
Declawing was a choice, of course. The fees in the Twin Cities are far higher than those at shelters out in the country, but that's a staggering amount of money — and it doesn't even include things like food, litter boxes, or litter.
I understand that shelters need to cover expenses, and I don't begrudge them or the vets the money. We love the cats — even if they keep us awake at night with their playing or by jumping up on the bed and purring in our ears — and can afford the cost, but it has set me to wondering: At what point does the cost of adoption start interfering with their mission to save animals?
A lot of families that might otherwise make wonderful homes for abandoned animals simply can't afford to spend that kind of money on a pet. Are the shelters dangerously narrowing their customer base in a pennywise, pound-foolish fashion?
Article comments
1 - Kaonashi
You didn't have to get your cats declawed. There's a product called Soft Claws (also called Soft Paws), which are vinyl covers you glue on your cat's claws. They come in different sizes and colors, and stay on for about a couple of weeks or so, depending on how active your cat is and how fast their claws grow.
They can be expensive, but I get mine on eBay for a great deal. Putting on Soft Claws is not that much more difficult than trimming your cat's claws. It's a shame that no one at the animal shelter told you about them, because it would have saved your cats unnecessary surgery.
2 - Kaonashi
By the way, I only spent $60 at the shelter for my kitten. This included spaying and microchipping. However, the bulk of the costs went to the subsequent visits to the vet to treat her cold (as you said, it's a very common occurrence among cats in shelters), and all the necessary shots.
3 - Lura
There is just never a good enough reason to declaw your cat. It is always human-selfish. Cat comes with furniture wrecking, there's tons of other solutions to it. If you don't like it buy a stuffed animal rather. I despise the vets who do it, even more those who decide to deprive cat of its most valuable asset.
Shame.
4 - Lindsay
First of all, I got my cats for $80 each from my local Humane Society. This pittance of a fee included spaying, microchipping, two bags of food, their first vet visit, a grooming visit, and all their prescriptions for the first ninety days.
This fee is incredibly nominal compared to what goes into providing these animals everything they need to make it to adoption and to care for the animals that will never be adopted. Even $150 is more than reasonable, when people often pay twice that at a pet store without any of the freebies included at the animal shelters.
If somebody is not willing to put a small investment towards their pet, then they are likely not prepared to put the further investment of care and maintenance toward it either.
As for your own situation, declawing your cats is something you chose to do, so this cannot be remotely factored into the sunk cost of the cats. Furthermore, it is something you chose to do knowing that it is cruel simply because you do not have the time to train the cats. If you are willing to subject them to something that you consider cruel because you are not willing to expend a bit of time initially, then perhaps you should have thought your adoption through a bit further.
Animal shelters are money-pits full of amazing people who give a great deal emotionally every day to save the little lives that you just adopted. How can you begrudge them the tiny fee they charge to cover a fraction of their operating costs?