DEAR DR. FOX: I was so glad to read your article about the cat group that wants to end elective declawing! I have never declawed any of my cats, ever. Even though the cat is put under anesthesia, it is still painful to your precious animal after the procedure is done. So it’s OK if the sides of my expensive couches are a little ripped; at least I know my little fur babies were there! I’ll admit it brings back wonderful memories of my precious 19-year-old tuxedo cat, Lucy P., who was probably the most special and loved cat I ever had.

I also want to thank the AAFP regarding the group’s policy on elective declawing procedures! You have come so far in letting humans know how barbaric this procedure is. -- R.H., West Palm Beach, Florida

DEAR R.H.: Other readers will appreciate your letter applauding the initiative being taken by the American Association of Feline Practitioners to encourage the phasing out of this cruel and unwarranted mutilation. Many will be touched by your perspective that the damage your beloved cats did with their claws to some of your upholstered furniture brings back fond memories. A friend of mine calls this “cat art.”

I should add that in many countries the routine declawing of cats is prohibited.

The Cat Support Network (catsupport.net) lists the following countries as already having banned this cruel procedure: England, Scotland, Wales, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Slovenia, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.

Organizations in several U.S. cities are making headway in outlawing the routine declawing of cats. In 2019, New York became the first state in the country to outlaw the practice, along with some Canadian provinces and U.S. cities including Denver, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Surely there is a connection between the continued civil unrest in the U.S. and the uncivil treatment of animals, as I documented in my book “Inhumane Society: The American Way of Exploiting Animals.”

DECLAWING, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND OBESTITY

Obesity is a widespread cat health problem today -- a crisis that causes much suffering and chronic deterioration. Exercise is part of the treatment (and prevention) all experts advise, so I must add an additional observation to the many downsides of declawing cats: Our rescued cat Fanny digs her claws into our carpeted floor and stairs for traction as she jets off like a rocket when chasing our dog, and during her upstairs-downstairs “evening crazies.” Cats’ “crazies” are associated with the innate hunting cycle of being hyper-alert and physically active, seeking, stalking, rushing and pouncing on prey.

Ethologically, a function of having claws -- in addition to dexterity, agility and self-care (grooming/scratching) -- is to be able to take off at higher speed. The claws act like a sprinter’s cleats by providing greater traction and momentum as the body is propelled forward.

Without her claws, Fanny would have less traction and likely be less active, eventually developing weaker muscle tone and becoming lethargic, depressed and more susceptible to obesity if her weight and food intake were not closely monitored. So I am suggesting that declawing is a significant contributing factor in the current feline obesity epidemic. Obesity is not simply due to biologically inappropriate kibble diets and overfeeding, because it is impossible for anatomically compromised declawed cats to be as active, and reach the same physical intensity, as those who have all their claws.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR DR. FOX: Your recent column discussing the empathy deficit is so timely and appropriate to the present situation in the U.S. Of course the tip of that iceberg would be the former president, as well as his family.

I’m reminded of one of his sons that went someplace abroad to shoot a rare animal for its head. I read about it in an article that was really about the money it cost for Secret Service agents to accompany him on the hunt. And then you mentioned how the disorder is evident in the corporate world. Well, since when does capitalism have a conscience? -- J.P.T., Ashland, Oregon

DEAR J.P.T.: The empathy deficit disorder, as I see it, is of a pandemic scale that makes the COVID-19 pandemic pale in comparison. COVID-19, of course, is associated with our inhumane treatment and consumption of animals -- but to speak for animal rights and environmental protection is to be marginalized as a “liberal socialist elite” under the newspeak of Trumpian “America First” triumphalism.

Every student, as a prerequisite for graduation from high school, should read George Orwell’s book “1984” and realize that what Orwell envisioned in a future society is happening now with what he called “doublethink” and “newspeak.” Newspeak includes demonization and suppression of the free press (“fake news”), book censorship and burning (“cancel culture”) and the silencing of truth speaking to power.

The Orwellian content of Donald J. Trump’s widely televised speech on Feb. 28 should go down in history as he demonized the free press and spread the fear of socialism and communism taking away individual liberties and the right to bear arms. The ultimate doublethink was Trump’s declaration that “liberal elitists” are not only stopping America from being “great again,” they are also anti-science.

The truth is that his own administration was blatantly anti-science: rife with environmental transgressions, denial of climate change and the rolling back of clean water and air regulations. It embodied an anti-science, pro-pillage, pro-pollute and pro-profit form of industrial capitalism.

America can be great again, but not until the individual liberties Donald Trump repeatedly alluded to in his speech are coupled with individual and corporate responsibility for environmental protection, conservation, restoration, animal rights and related public health: in sum, the common good.

This means unification of two visions: capitalism and socialism. Communitarianism or socialism, rather than totalitarian communism, might be better terms to describe such sustainable natural law and order politically. This is the antithesis of the Darwinian view of hierarchy and competition, which some historians contend supported colonialism, empire and capitalism.

In my opinion, both views are half-right and together make one whole. This is a challenge to every democracy to maintain integration, equalitarianism and balance.

DEAR DR. FOX: Thank you for adding to my lexicon the term “empathy deficit disorder” (EDD)! This line in your recent column was spot-on: “Where is the feeling and responsibility for harmful consequences beyond profit margins and investor satisfaction?”

Unfortunately, that train left the station before trains were invented! Profit is always the motive for commerce. However, personal responsibility to fellow man is the dream of philosophy.

A friend once told me he had an obligation, due to his wealth, to helping the less fortunate. He put his efforts and resources where he could. He was one of those unseen and unheard-of corporate captains who did not behave with EDD. Therefore, my question is: Is EDD learned or is it genetic? -- P.D.C., Asbury Park, Pennsylvania

DEAR P.D.C.: I appreciate your thoughtful question and comments. In my opinion, the EDD is epigenetic, determined by the interactions of genes and environment, the latter being cultural-parental-educational, the former still part of our gene pool. Natural selection for competitiveness and exceptionalism through eons of wars and insurrections may have assured continuance of such genetic propensities which most of us possess.

The collective human desire to live in peace and harmony will never be realized so long as some cannot even abide in peace and harmony with a few wolves, coyotes and other wildlife where they live. They evidently enjoy killing them, even turning the slaughter, which state wildlife managers refer to as sustainable “harvesting,” into a recreational and competitive sport.

To kill to live, as per the wolf and native hunter, is the ethical antithesis of living to kill, as per the sporting trophy hunter. There is no moral equivalence in Nature to justifying killing for sport, recreation or pleasure. The only justification can come from an anthropocentric and increasingly harmful, depraved existence, culturally inherited and even religiously sanctioned.

So we can and must train ourselves to control those impulses that may harm others and ourselves. See the book “Programming the Human Biocomputer” by fellow ethologist and dolphin researcher Dr. John C. Lilly. We can change our minds, but first we must see to our hearts.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR DR. FOX: Please read this article about coyote-killing contests in Wisconsin: tinyurl.com/s2rtkcus

Is there any hope to make these kinds of people change? -- K.L., Madison, Wisconsin

DEAR K.L.: The only solution that I see is to pass laws making such activities illegal, and to effectively enforce them. Exposing and shaming those with evident empathy-deficit disorder, who take pleasure in killing, simply creates resistance -- and even death threats, occasionally, against those who question their activities.

So-called “canned hunts” on private property, where people pay to shoot captive wild animals -- sometimes even zoo- and menagerie-bred African “big game” -- are another problem.

My daughter, Camilla Fox, founder and director of the nonprofit Project Coyote, has just released a new documentary film in partnership with National Geographic film producers. It is entitled “Wildlife Killing Contests” and is available at ProjectCoyote.org. It shows a side of human nature that is, frankly, shocking. Also available on that website is a petition in support of banning of wildlife-killing contests on federal public lands.

Until this practice is banned nationally, states must take up the effort, and several have done so. In September, Washington became the seventh state to prohibit wildlife-killing contests when the state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to ban the killing of unprotected species as part of a contest, just a few months after Colorado became the sixth. In 2019, Arizona and Massachusetts outlawed contests for predatory and furbearing species; New Mexico and Vermont prohibited coyote-killing contests in 2019 and 2018, respectively; and California outlawed the awarding of prizes and inducements for killing non-game mammals and furbearers in 2014. Maryland passed a moratorium on cownose ray-killing contests in 2017.

That all of this protection for wildlife must be legislated state by state, and take so much time, money and effort, is a tragic fact. There are so many people who still see animals as objects -- targets, varmints or trophies -- and treat them accordingly.

DEAR DR. FOX: I have been reading your column for some years and appreciate your voice for the animals. After reading your book “Animals and Nature First,” I can see why some readers think you prefer animals over people. What do you say to them?

People say that about me, because I rescue and foster strays, but it’s not true. Then again, I do not like all people like I do animals! -- K.Y., Trenton, New Jersey

DEAR K.Y.: I like your candor, and I think we are on the same page. Ever since I was a child, I was more comfortable around animals rather than my own kind -- my peers, in particular, whom I could rarely trust. In contrast, I found animals to be open and true to their natures: I knew if they were friendly, afraid, hurt or dangerous. I would not invoke the term “innocence” in relation to children, or other animals, but rather accept the fact that people can hide or fake emotions to a degree not seen in other species.

This does not make me a misanthrope; my empathy is, perhaps regrettably, all-embracing! As for the so-called philanthropist -- defined as a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money -- history informs us of many who made their money exploiting people and animals and even destroying the environment. So-called philanthropic organizations can also serve as window-dressing to cover up moneymaking and laundering activities, and continued profit-making through the mirage of their charitable contributions. Donors and recipients beware!

In short, handle Homo sapiens with care. Putting animals and nature first, as I seek to demonstrate in that book, is like altruism: It is ultimately enlightened self-interest, and is the core of the One Health movement.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)