Lawmakers approve ban on debark, declawing

California lawmakers have approved a bill that would prohibit landlords from requiring tenants to declaw or devocalize their pets in order to move in.

The state Assembly on Thursday passed the bill by a 44-10 vote, sending it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The bill’s author, Democratic Assemblyman Pedro Nava, says it is unconscionable for landlords to require pet owners to subject their animals to permanent surgeries as a condition of tenancy.
Under AB2743, landlords would be fined $1,000 for demanding those procedures in a lease agreement.

Eight local governments in California recently banned the practice of cat declawing, calling it inhumane.

It is by no means a done deal to assume that Gov. Schwarzenegger will sign the bill without serious opposition.

According to the Paw Project, the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) strongly opposes this bill, and is lobbying hard to defeat it. They will work now to share their views with Gov. Schwarzenegger and are already enlisting members of the association to express their negative stand on its passage. On their website, the Paw Project states, “The CVMA is powerful because many legislators automatically support the position held by a trade or business association”.

7 Responses to “Lawmakers approve ban on debark, declawing”

  1. Mich Harris says:

    In general, the 2 practices mentioned are cruel, and beyond inhumane. They need to be outlawed in every state completely. Would a human want their nails and vocal cords ripped out? I don’t think so. So why would we do it to another individual fur, or no fur?
    The CVMA just wants the $$$ from these practices, that many vets will not even perform.
    I hope the Gov. will come through and make the correct decision on this one, but will not hold my breath. I do not support most decisions he makes.

  2. Charlyne says:

    Many years ago, I married a man who had an older Siamese cat. The cat did not like me and would hide on top of the frig and jump on me, and scatch me. she also started shredding the furniture with her claws.
    We decided to have her declawed. Back then, this was an acceptable practice.

    That cat NEVER walked properly again. We maimed her..permanantly..without realizing we would do so.

    This is a sickening way to find out that “declawing” a cat that loves and trusts you and is dependent upon us to care for an love her…that we hurt her. I think she was in pain the rest of her life.
    My husband and I never really “got over” the guilt of doing this to her.

    I have seen this for myself and experienced the pain of a cat that we chose to have this done to. Just remembering this has me feeling terrible.
    I do not know why this has not been outlawed. But it should be!
    This is not a “harmless” procedure! A cat that has been declawed just lost their ability to protect itself from ohter cats and can never be allowed outside again.

    This was so not worth protecting the furniture! But we did not know better at that time!

  3. granny says:

    This just annoys me. My neighbor has a barkless dog, and THANK GOD! you can still hear him, but it is so much softer, and he gets the enjoyment of doing it. The other option was to get rid of the dog. Neighbors complained & it went to court. If not for that procedure, there would be one more dog sitting at the Humane Society.
    As for declawing: ALL my indoor cats have been declawed for the last 25 years! They were strictly indoor cats. They had great lives. I’ve had 8 in that time. They were all able to use scratching post & stretch (don’t know what that’s about). Only one time did my cat have a permanent psychological problem: and that’s when I didn’t go to a vet who only does the minimum. He only takes the top part of the claw,leaving everything else. This usually means one or two grow back: but he takes care of it for free when it does.
    I’m able to massage the tips of their paws. They use them for grabbing at toys. It all depends on who you go to. I used Township Animal Hospital in Windsor for the 7 who did well. My one cat paid the price for me to learn. I feel terrible, but now I can prevent others from making the same mistake. If ordinances keep telling us what we can/can’t do to our animals, we’ll just go out of the area, giving our money to someone who WILL do it; and give that State or County the tax dollars. Also, if not for debarking,there wouldn’t be as many high rise pooches in New York City. So wise up folks, the granola doctors are trying to scare you.
    I own leather furniture. If not for declawing, I’d have to get my furniture 2nd hand & replace it every year!

  4. billie says:

    The act of declawing involves the amputation of the toes from the end joint. This is necessary due to the fact that cats claws, unlike dog nails or human nails, are sheathed and not just externally attached. The amputations affects their balance and forces them to walk on the rear of their feet resulting in tendon strain and arthritis in every single instance. It might be hard to spot on a cat due to their instinct to hide illness/injury, but it is there.

  5. granny says:

    Billie don’t be a hero….

    I have 25 years experience with cats…
    Unless you die…come back as a cat, and then die again, come back as a human and tell me that it was torture: I will only then believe you. But until then shut it & quit making it even more difficult for pets to get homes.

  6. Charlyne says:

    The following is a list of countries in which declawing cats is either illegal
    or considered extremely inhumane and only performed under
    extreme circumstances.
    Northern Ireland
    New Zealand

  7. Charlyne says:

    Moral, Ethical and Humane Considerations
    The veterinary justification for declawing is that the owner may otherwise dispose of the cat, perhaps cruelly. It is ethically inappropriate, in the long term, for veterinarians to submit to this form of moral blackmail from their clients.

    “The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to cosmetic surgeries and to those performed to correct ‘vices.’ Declawing generally is unacceptable because the suffering and disfigurement it causes is not offset by any benefits to the cat. Declawing is done strictly to provide convenience for people. The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR)

    Some veterinarians have argued that some people would have their cats killed if declawing was not an option. We should not, however, allow ourselves to taken ‘emotional hostage’ like this. If a person really would kill her or his cat in this case, it is reasonable to question the suitability of that person as a feline guardian, especially when there are millions of non-declawed cats living in harmony with people.”

    Most people are vehemently opposed to declawing due to a combination of reasons: 1) because the end (owner convenience) doesn’t justify the means (causing unnecessary pain to the cat); 2) because other, less harmful alternatives to declawing exist and 3) because claws are part of the nature or “catness” of cats. Overall, the view is that it is ethically inappropriate to remove parts of an animal’s anatomy, thereby causing the animal pain, merely to fit the owner’s lifestyle, aesthetics, or convenience without any benefit to the cat. It should be emphasized that “most people” includes virtually the entire adult population of Europe and many other countries around the world.

    Many countries are particularly concerned about animal welfare and have banned declawing as abusive and causing
    unnecessary pain and suffering with no benefit to the cat.. One highly regarded veterinary textbook by Turner and Bateson on
    the biology of cat behavior concludes a short section on scratching behavior with the following statement: “The operative
    removal of the claws, as is sometimes practiced to protect furniture and curtains, is an act of abuse and should be forbidden by
    law in all, not just a few countries.”

Leave a Reply