New Hampshire cat anti-declaw bill (HB 231) killed under questionable circumstances
A kitten awaits examination at a local shelter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2023
Concord, New Hampshire
Veterinarians say banning declawing will protect cats, the public and veterinarians, but the New Hampshire anti-declaw bill was killed despite much support.
New Hampshire House Bill 231 which would ban cat declawing was heard on the Senate floor today. After a short debate, Senate President Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) ruled to table the bill despite the overwhelming shouts of “nay.”
Senator Howard Pearl (R-Loudon) said “he heard from many veterinarians that when this procedure is suggested it is not encouraged unless medically necessary. In fact this procedure is not even being taught in the colleges today. House Bill 231 is looking to impose regulations when in reality this is not an issue in New Hampshire. The bill is unnecessary which is why a majority of the committee voted in favor of the motion to inexpedient to legislate.” Senator Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) made a motion to table the bill.
However, many veterinarians support the ban on declawing. An American Association of Feline Practitioners survey found that a majority of the 1,200 veterinarians surveyed support declaw bans. New Hampshire veterinarian Dr. Karen Campbell in an opinion piece published in the Keene Sentinel writes “many veterinarians are guilted into performing unethical surgeries at the behest of their human clients. And without legislation banning the procedure, clients simply shop around until they find a veterinarian willing to comply.”
Dr. Sabrina Estabrook-Russett of Court Street Veterinary Hospital in Keene, New Hampshire said ”Our colleagues in Britain and Europe, several provinces in Canada – they all categorize this as animal cruelty.”
“The majority of New Hampshire’s citizens want their cats to be protected from the cruel and unnecessary surgical toe amputation called “declawing.” ”
Senator Daryl Abbas (R-Salem) opposed the motion to table saying “I love cats.” Senator Debra Altschiller (D-Stratham) also opposed the motion to table saying “Only 20 people oppose this bill and 123 citizens reached out in support of House Bill 231 now ask us to vote against that tabling motion,” and also cited the many organizations including the American Animal Hospital Association who strongly opposes declawing.
After the voice vote on the motion to table the bill, Sen. Bradley, with some hesitancy, said “the ayes, in my opinion, have it.”
In response, Mike Bordes (R-Belknap) said, “Senator Bradley did NOT preside correctly, and the nays were definitively louder than the yays. This decision will continue to harm our beloved felines. The decision by Senator Bradley basically states that New Hampshire is ok with animal cruelty, which in my view is not where the majority of NH citizens stand.”
Lori Shepler, president of CitytheKitty.org concurs. Shepler recorded the audio and Our Honor tweeted an image comparing the decibel levels with the ayes showing 83.3 decibels and nays showing 85.6 decibels.
On May 16th, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee voted 3-2 to “inexpedient to legislate” the bill, which would mean the bill would be tabled without a vote. The vote was divided along party lines with the two committee Democrats voting to support the bill. On March 16th, the bill passed the House floor 225-147.
On February 28th, 2023, the bill passed through the House Environment and Agriculture committee with a tied vote of 9-9. In support of the bill Rep. Nicholas Germana said the committee “received testimony that some veterinarians are strongly in favor of the bill because it provides them with support when they refuse to perform the procedure when requested by clients. The bill would continue to permit the procedure for medically necessary reasons. The CDC does not advocate for the declawing of cats as a protective measure for people with medical conditions complicated by cat scratches.” However, Rep. Jim Creighton in a statement supporting tabling the bill said "the government should not be involved in directing how veterinarians practice medicine or dictate what procedures they should or should not perform, nor should we make it a civil penalty with fines for violation” he added “there are cases where options to declaw could keep a cat in its home rather than rehoming or euthanasia.” However, a 2022 study showed that after anti-declaw legislation was passed in British Columbia, there was not an increase in cats relinquished to the shelter.
On March 28th, during the Senate and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Dr. Jane Barlow Roy of the New Hampshire State Veterinary Medical Association (NHSVMA) said, “the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) at a state and national level have concerns that legislation and regulation will remove their members’ ability to make judgements on medical care.” During questioning Dr. Barlow Roy stated that she “did not think declawing was more invasive or had more severe side effects than spaying or neutering.” Senator Regina Birdsell (R-Hampstead) asked if the NHSVMA could come out with their own rules regarding declawing. Dr. Barlow Roy replied, “the NHSVMA does not […] have their own position statements, they default to the AVMA’s position statements.”
Crystal Heath, a shelter veterinarian and executive director of the non-profit Our Honor says, “we have decades of evidence to show that declaw bans protect cats, veterinarians and the public.” Regarding the harms of declawing, Heath points to a 2017 study showing declawed cats were more than four times more likely to bite, three times more likely to be aggressive, nearly three times more likely to have back pain, three times more likely to excessively self-groom, and seven times more likely to avoid the litter box. Heath says these are “all behaviors that could lead to cats being relinquished to the shelter or euthanized.”
Veterinarian Jennifer Conrad, founder and director of the Paw Project says, “I believe that the the majority of New Hampshire’s citizens want their cats to be protected from the cruel and unnecessary surgical toe amputation called “declawing.” The New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly in support of a declaw ban and it sounds to me, and anyone with decent hearing, that the Senate concurred today. Why Senator Jeb Bradley can’t hear that fact is a mystery. If it’s because he wanted the bill not to progress, does he realize he’s not only condoning but promoting animal cruelty?”
Declawing has already been banned in Maryland and New York. More than 40 other countries have also outlawed declawing. Representative Bordes says he will introduce the bill again next year.
Dr. Monica Bando, senior lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire School of Veterinary Medicine says “it is mind-boggling and deeply disturbing to me that in 2023, electively declawing cats, a procedure that has been deemed unethical and a form of mutilation for decades in numerous countries across the globe, a procedure evidenced to cause chronic pain in cats, remains permissible in the U.S.” Dr. Lina Gustaffson, a veterinarian in Sweden concurs saying, “I find it incredible that this is still allowed in the U.S. and even worse that some states oppose a ban when veterinarians clearly advocate for it.”
Anti-declaw legislation is still pending in Illinois and Massachusetts. The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA) and Chicago Veterinary Medical Association have already opposed the legislation. A recent Chicago Policy Review article by Chicago-based veterinarian Dr. Nicole Gianni criticizes the ISVMA’s position saying, “ISVMA’s opposition is a position not based on science, but instead on political ideology—one that prioritizes opposition to any regulation of our profession despite the possibility that such regulation will benefit our patients, our colleagues, and our clients.”
The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association is currently considering its position on the bill. In a recent article, Massachusetts veterinarian Dr. Martha Smith Blackmore said, “The declawing of cats is a barbaric procedure, and for me, it’s fundamentally wrong because it removes a part that belongs to the cat with no therapeutic benefit to the cat,” adding, “I really feel like it shouldn’t be allowed to be performed because it has no benefit to the cat.”
Media Contacts:
Crystal Heath, DVM
Email: cheath@ourhonor.org
Rep. Mike Bordes
Email: mike.bordes@leg.state.nh.us
Jennifer Conrad, DVM - Paw Project
Email: Pawproject@icloud.com
