California Board opposes AB 867 banning cat declawing procedures

The California Veterinary Medical Board convened on April 16, 2025, to discuss significant legislative developments concerning the controversial practice of cat declawing. The primary focus of the meeting was Assembly Bill 867, which seeks to prohibit individuals from performing declawing procedures on cats unless they are licensed veterinarians and the procedure is deemed necessary for therapeutic purposes.

Historically, the board has opposed similar legislation, including a failed bill from 2024. The current bill mandates that veterinarians must file a written statement with the board detailing the purpose of the declawing procedure, a requirement that has raised concerns among board members regarding the additional administrative burden it would impose.

During the meeting, board members expressed mixed feelings about the bill. Some voiced concerns that it restricts veterinarians' professional judgment and autonomy in practice. Dr. Bradbury highlighted the painful nature of the procedure and questioned the necessity of legislative intervention in veterinary practices. He noted that while the bill aims to discourage declawing for non-therapeutic reasons, it may not effectively address consumer needs or harm.

The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) also weighed in, reiterating its long-standing opposition to legislative measures that dictate veterinary practices. They argue that the veterinary profession has already moved away from declawing through self-regulation and education, making further legal restrictions unnecessary.

Public comments during the meeting reflected a range of opinions, with some advocating for the bill based on ethical concerns about the procedure's impact on cats' well-being. Others called for more data on declawing practices in California to inform the board's position.

As the board deliberated, a motion was made to oppose the bill, emphasizing the need for veterinarians to retain the discretion to make medical decisions without legislative interference. The board's decision on its official stance remains pending, but the discussions highlighted the ongoing debate over animal welfare and veterinary practice standards in California.