Comments
KORETZ REPORT - AB 867 has passed both houses of the California legislature without a single NO vote. I urge Governor Gavin Newsom to sign this popular, bipartisan bill into law.
This bill would prohibit the inhumane and unnecessary practice of declawing cats. Declawing is a procedure that is proven to harm cats and that provides no benefits to humans. It is illegal or considered cruel and unethical treatment in most of the world and already has been banned in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, nine of the ten Canadian provinces, and nearly two dozen cities and counties in the US. The time is long past due that that California join these states and other jurisdictions in finding that the only instance in which a cat should ever lose a portion of a toe is when it is surgically necessary to treat a medical condition involving the toe, not for human convenience.
West Hollywood passed North America’s first declaw ban in 2003, the same year that I introduced a statewide bill to ban declawing in the State Assembly. Though that bill did not become law, animal advocacy organizations, led by the Paw Project, were relentless with their educational programs, paving the way for the declaw prohibition ordinance that I introduced in 2009 to the LA City Council. The ordinance passed unanimously.
Declawing often has long-lasting consequences for cats’ health and behavior. Surgical complications include hemorrhage, infection, pain, and complications with anesthesia. Removing cats’ claws also increases the risk of behaviors like biting, aggression, and litter box avoidance, as reported in peer-reviewed articles in the veterinary literature. Chronic back pain and lameness have also been reported to be the long-term results of declawing.
Declawing is generally performed to prevent scratching, but scratching is a natural cat behavior, and non-surgical alternatives are available to address unwanted scratching. Cat owners in places where declawing is not performed happily co-exist with cats and their claws, and can rely on nail trimming, nail caps, and barriers to control unwanted scratching.
Declawing does not guarantee a home for a cat or save cats’ lives. However, in Los Angeles, cat intake to our shelters decreased over 40% in the years after the Los Angeles Anti-Declaw ordinance was passed. This was attributed by the Los Angeles Animal Services Department to the decrease in the unwanted behaviors, particularly biting, aggression, and litter box avoidance, which are known to be the consequence of declawing and are also known to be among the top reasons for relinquishment of cats to shelters.
Since biting is much more likely than scratching to transmit dangerous bacteria and other pathogens to medically vulnerable cat lovers, recognized health authorities, such as NIH and the CDC, have long advised against cat declawing to protect the health of people with compromised immune systems. Declawed cats may pose a greater risk to immunocompromised individuals than cats who have their claws. The fact that the author of the West Hollywood declawing ban was Councilmember John Duran, a man who has publicly acknowledged his HIV+ status, puts a fine point on this.
I believe the primary purpose of declawing for many veterinary practices is profit. Surgical lasers used to declaw are expensive, and vets must perform many of them to make back their money. They will often advise the owner of a kitten whom they are spaying or neutering that they might as well declaw them while they are under anesthesia. In those cases, declawing is not as a solution to an actual problem that exists.
I was unable to pass a broad anti-declaw law in the State Assembly, but the vets did not oppose my compromise version, which banned declawing of big cats (lions, tigers and bobcats) because it didn’t cost them significantly in lost revenue.
Though the law in most states, including California, regards animals as property, we know better. Our cats are part of our families. I’m sure we don’t want to disfigure them or cause them life-long pain for our convenience, or more likely, the convenience of our vet.
Once the bill is signed, as it should be, California will join the other states and jurisdictions showing care and compassion for our companion animals.
AB 867 is supported by the Paw Project, Humane World for Animals (formerly Humane Society of the United States), Humane Veterinary Medical Alliance, In Defense of Animals, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and many other organizations, hundreds of veterinarians, and other individuals.
At a time when the Federal Government is exhibiting such heartlessness toward all, California has the opportunity to show compassion and concern toward the voiceless in our households. The time is now. Governor Newsom, please sign AB 867.
(Paul Koretz is a veteran public servant with decades of experience in Los Angeles area government. He served three terms on the Los Angeles City Council, represented the 42nd District in the California State Assembly, and was both Mayor and a longtime City Councilmember in West Hollywood. Known for his work on environmental policy, animal welfare, and fiscal responsibility, Koretz is the current Vice Chair of the Board of the nonprofit Pando Populus, whose primary focus is sustainable education projects at the college level.)
