Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances AB 867 to ban nonmedical cat declawing in California
Summary
Assemblymember Lee—s bill to prohibit declawing of cats except for medical necessity passed the committee and was referred to Senate Appropriations after extensive testimony from veterinarians, animal-welfare groups and veterinary associations.
Assemblymember Lee presented AB 867 to the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on June 23, seeking to prohibit cat declawing unless performed by a licensed veterinarian for a medical purpose. After hearing supporters and opponents, the committee voted to move the bill to Senate Appropriations.
Lee told the committee declawing is a surgical amputation equivalent to removing a final digit and said the bill would ban that permanent, nontherapeutic surgery when done for owner convenience. "When it is performed for any other reason other than the health of the cat, then I believe it is cruel and inhumane," Lee said.
Supporters included veterinarians Dr. Jennifer Conrad and Dr. Barbara Hodges, who described declawing as an amputation that causes pain and long-term effects. The Humane Veterinary Medical Association, Paw Project and several humane-society and animal-protection organizations testified in favor. Gary Cooper of the Paw Project and Juliana Tetlow of the San Diego Humane Society spoke for their groups.
The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the California Veterinary Medical Board testified in opposition. Christina DeCaro of the CVMA said the association opposed the bill on principle because it viewed surgical-practice decisions as best left to the profession rather than the Legislature. Jessica Seiferman of the Veterinary Medical Board said the board opposes prohibiting a specific medical procedure and prefers clinical judgment by veterinarians.
Members questioned how often the procedure occurs in California and whether alternatives (nail caps, trimming) are permitted. Dr. Grant Miller (CVMA) said neither state veterinary school has taught declawing for decades and that the procedure is performed rarely by most practitioners; some witnesses estimated nationwide rates but not a precise California figure. The author agreed to clarify bill language where needed regarding noninvasive alternatives.
Senator Archuleta moved the bill; the committee reported the motion as approved and sent AB 867 to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee reported the tally in committee action as unanimous in favor at the time of the clerk—s summary (votes reported in committee record). The chair said the item would be returned on call for members who were absent but the motion was reported out for the next step.
Why it matters: The bill would make California consistent with other states that have limited or banned nontherapeutic declawing and would change practice for any veterinarian performing the procedure for convenience. Opponents warned a statutory ban could set a precedent for legislative regulation of other veterinary procedures and urged deference to the profession.
Next steps: AB 867 was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee for fiscal review and further consideration.
