Veterinarians Support AB-867 to Prohibit Cat Declawing in California
To Whom It May Concern,
Our Honor, a non-profit veterinary advocacy organization, strongly supports AB 867, prohibiting the unnecessary and harmful practice of declawing in California.
An American Association of Feline Practitioners survey found that most of the 1,200 veterinarians surveyed support legislative bans on declawing. However, similar bills in the past have been stopped by the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), which does not represent the perspective of most California veterinarians. The CVMA’s advocacy against such bills does not align with the scientific data and evidence showing that declawing prohibitions protect veterinarians, cats, and the public.
The CVMA’s historic position harms our profession’s reputation as caring advocates for animals. Declawing, also known as onychectomy, is amputation, whether performed by scalpel, clippers, or laser. This severs the tendons, nerves, and ligaments in their toes, permanently preventing them from performing typical feline behaviors. There is never a reason to declaw for non-therapeutic reasons (that is, unless surgery were necessary to treat animals' medical conditions). Declawing does not keep cats in homes, a fact acknowledged by the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) and the Feline Veterinary Medical Association (FelineVMA).
The states of New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts have banned declawing.
Eight cities in California - Los Angeles, San Francisco, West Hollywood, Burbank, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, and Culver City – and many other US cities, including Denver, St. Louis, Austin, Pittsburgh, Evanston, Pittsburgh, and Madison, have enacted declaw bans. Statistics available from CA cities indicate that the relinquishment of cats to shelters in those cities in the years since the bans were enacted has not increased - in fact, the number of cats dumped in shelters has DECREASED consistently in the years since the laws went into effect.
The continued legality of non-therapeutic declawing puts undue pressure on veterinarians to carry out harmful and ethically questionable procedures. Without a clear ban, individual practitioners are responsible for navigating the difficult and delicate task of persuading clients not to subject their cats to unnecessary mutilation. By opposing legislation intended to safeguard animal welfare, the CVMA disregards the well-being of cats and the veterinarians committed to practicing in line with humane and ethical standards.
Research highlights the serious impact declawing can have on a cat’s mental health and their chances of remaining in a stable home. A 2017 study found that declawed cats were significantly more likely to engage in excessive grooming or avoid the litter box—by a factor of seven. Litter box issues are among the most frequently cited reasons for cat surrenders, according to a six-year retrospective study. Tragically, cats with a history of biting are more than four times as likely to be returned to shelters, and if they are adopted, those bites can cause serious injuries and even legal consequences.
There is no reason to declaw cats to protect human health. The NIH, CDC, US Public Health Service, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Canadian Medical Association all stated explicitly that the declawing is "not advised," even for the animals of persons who are severely immunocompromised, including those with HIV—especially given that declawed cats are four times more likely to bite and three times more likely to act aggressively as a result of the procedure. This opinion is echoed in statements on declawing published by the AAHA and FelineVMA.
As veterinarians, we pledged to uphold “the protection of animal health and welfare, and the prevention and relief of animal suffering.” Support for this bill is a direct reflection of that commitment.
Crystal Heath, DVM
Executive Director, Our Honor
References
Leon, S C., J A. Flanders, J M. Scarlett, S Ayers, and K A. Houpt. “Attitudes of Owners Regarding Tendonectomy and Onychectomy in Cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Association 218, no. 1 (2001): 43-47. Accessed March 17, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.218.43.
Bennett, B S., K A. Houpt, H N. Erb. “Effects of Declawing on Feline Behavior.” Companion Animal Practice 2, no. 12 (1988): 7-12. Accessed March 17, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279390787057766
Liu, S., S. Wailani, S. Welsh, J M. Berger. “A six-year retrospective study of outcomes of surrendered cats (Felis catus) with periuria in a no-kill shelter.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior 42, no. 1 (2021): 75-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.12.002
Ellis, A., K. van Haaften, A. Protopopova, E. Gordon. “Effect of a provincial feline onychectomy ban on cat intake and euthanasia in a British Columbia animal shelter system.” Journal of feline medicine and surgery 24 no. 1 (2022): 739–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X211043820
