California latest state to ban cat declawing for nonmedical reasons

California has become the seventh state to prohibit cat declawing for non-medical reasons, despite the objections of the California VMA (CVMA). The association argued veterinarians should be allowed to exercise professional judgement as to whether to perform a surgical procedure on a case-by-case basis.

On October 9, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 867 (AB 867), prohibiting the declawing of a cat unless a veterinarian performs the procedure for therapeutic purposes.

Other states with prohibitions in place are Illinois, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The District of Columbia bans the procedure, as do the cities of Austin, Texas; Denver; Madison, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh and Allentown, Pennsylvania; and St. Louis.

The most common approach to cat declawing, onychectomy, is a surgical procedure whereby the distal bones of a cat's toes are amputated, removing the entire nail bed and claw. The potential for complications, including infection, chronic pain and nerve damage, makes it a controversial procedure.

California Assemblymember Alex Lee, said in a press release: "This important legislation shows our commitment to protecting our cat companions. After years of pushing to make this a reality, I'm proud to see California create a more compassionate society for our feline friends by moving away from this inhumane practice."

However, Dr. Grant Miller, director of regulatory affairs for the CVMA told AVMA News that the association remained opposed to AB 867 through the entire legislative session. That's because, fundamentally, association leadership believes this surgical procedure should not be legislated.

"Rather, veterinarians need to be able to freely exercise professional discretion on a case-by-case basis in making decisions for animal patients along with their owners," he said.

The CVMA believes that the profession has adequately regulated itself in regard to performing this procedure and thus a law making it illegal is unnecessary.

"Very few California veterinarians offer or perform the procedure," Dr. Miller continued, "and it is not taught in either of California's two veterinary schools. While the CVMA greatly appreciates the California Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development committee for securing several important amendments to the bill, we still remain respectfully opposed to the ban."

The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) and Feline VMA oppose elective declawing, supporting non-surgical alternatives instead. The AVMA also emphasizes the importance of respecting a veterinarian's professional judgment when it comes to performing surgical procedures on individual patients.