Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cat Declawing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veterinary Medical Board votes to oppose AB 867, citing reporting burden and regulation of medical practice
Summary
The California Veterinary Medical Board voted to oppose Assembly Bill 867, which would largely prohibit declawing of cats except when therapeutic and would require veterinarians to file written statements with the board when declawing for therapeutic purposes.
The California Veterinary Medical Board voted to oppose Assembly Bill 867 after extended discussion about whether the measure would improperly regulate veterinary medical judgment and impose an unusual reporting requirement on veterinarians.
AB 867 would prohibit a person from performing declaw (onychectomy) or similar procedures on any cat unless the person is licensed as a veterinarian under the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act and the veterinarian performs the procedure for a ‘‘therapeutic purpose’’ as defined in the bill. The bill would require a veterinarian performing a declaw for therapeutic reasons to file a written statement with the board describing the purpose for the procedure and to provide that statement to the cat’s owner.
Board members and staff expressed concern that the requirement to file written statements with the board is an unprecedented reporting mandate that could expose veterinarians to Public Records Act requests and subsequent scrutiny. Staff said the board does not currently require reporting of routine procedures and would not have an obvious role in using that data. Several board members said they objected to statutory requirements that dictate how veterinarians practice and could lead to regulatory or enforcement consequences for routine clinical judgment.
Public commenters included Grant Miller of the California Veterinary Medical Association, who said the veterinary profession has moved away from the declaw procedure by its own policies and education and that criminalizing or legislating practice would be unnecessary. Members of the public who opposed declawing urged the board to support a ban and requested data on how many declaws are performed in California. Board member Dr. Bradbury noted veterinarians perform declaws for genuine therapeutic reasons in a small number of cases (tumor, infection, other nail‑bed disease).
After discussion, the board passed a motion to oppose AB 867. The roll call recorded unanimous yes votes from the members present. The board’s opposition letter will reflect concerns about the reporting burden and statutory regulation of medical decision-making.
Ending: The board opposed AB 867 and will register that position with the Legislature; staff noted the fact sheet from the author’s office was attached to the meeting memo and will be used for follow-up correspondence.
