Oppose California Bill SB 762

Before I start and ask people to oppose California Bill SB 762, let me say that I am an outsider. I am not American. That has benefits and detriments. On the upside it means I am more likely to see the bigger picture, to stand back, to not be indoctrinated by tens of years of culture that considers that the declawing of cats is acceptable. And there are many millions of people in America who profess to love their cats and who believe that they do love their cats and yet assault them viciously in requesting that a veterinarian declaw them for non-therapeutic reasons.

On the downside it means I have to charter my way through a minefield of legislation that looks a bit odd. Why oppose California Bill SB 762?

The objective (or at least one of the objectives) of SB 762 seems to be to ensure uniform statewide governance of licensed professions. That is to prohibit cities or counties from restricting procedures that are licensed by the State Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). In relation to the declawing of cats this bill seems to refer to (and be a reaction to) the West Hollywood declawing ban that was at first successfully challenged by the California Veterinary Medical Association; the decision then being overturn on appeal by the Court of Appeal who upheld the anti-declaw ordinance, which is the only one of its kind in the nation.

On the face of it, California Bill SB 762 would seem to be concerned with blocking any more cities and municipalities who are thinking about doing the same thing as the now famous West Hollywood. Yet:

It is important to note that this bill does not seek to undo the West Hollywood ordinance and includes a grandfathering clause that preserves the City of West Hollywood's 2003 anti-declawing ordinance. (quoted from info.sen.ca.gov website)

However, the bill would seem to be about preventing similar actions. Supporters of California Bill SB 762 say that:

....without legislation ensuring uniform statewide governance of licensed professions, professional standards will be dissimilar and discordant. (quoted from info.sen.ca.gov website)

The last argument, in my opinion completely misses the point. It is a very narrow argument. Any decision should be based on what is correct and proper. It is patently obvious that declawing is wrong and no matter how many weasel words or smoke screens that are used by veterinarians, it is right and proper to ban it through legislation at any level if the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) don't do their job and at least regulate the practice far more closely (or better still plain ban it).

On that sound footing it is argued that it is state legislation that is "discordant" and out of step with the city legislators who reflect the proper course of action. In short, the West Hollywood legislation is correct and the state should follow. This may sound like an extravagant thing to say but in the USA, the city of West Hollywood is at the forefront of much needed change. It is the beginning of change and that is why they are currently alone. If the state followed West Hollywood, there would be complete uniformity and the objective of this proposed legislation would be met. If state legislation tries to prevent cities doing the proper thing it will only cause future litigation and problems. And I call upon all those cities who are or have considered passing ordinances banning declawing to go ahead as this might disrupt things.

It seems that the only way to ban declawing (if the WVMA and other associations won't and it would be far easier if they did) is to do it piecemeal in small "bite sized pieces" and thereby chip away at it. This is because the bigger legislators are unprepared to do it probably because at the state level there is too many people pulling in different directions and it becomes unmanageable.

Another point of note is that not all vets are affiliated to the AVMA and that could lead to discordant regulations. Legislation would provide an umbrella of rules to ensure a uniform approach.

Opponents of California Bill SB 762 say:

...that local jurisdictions have the right to make specific decisions relating to professions and that the appellate court's decision should be upheld.

Yes, because it is the only way to get the job done of stopping the legalised yet criminal assault on innocent cat companions by unethical veterinarians who routinely recommend it against the interests of the patient, the cat and in breach of their oath. More to come. Any errors in this? Please leave a comment and it will be corrected.

Oppose California Bill SB 762 - See:

• American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat
• AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats
  

From Oppose California Bill SB 762 to Home Page

Veterinarians' Arguments for Declawing

On reading letters from veterinarians to the council of the City of Berkeley, California, in support of not banning declawing in late 2003, I note that Veterinarian's arguments for declawing include the following:

1. Decisions on declawing should be made between the veterinarian and the client and without interference from legislators.
2. If cats were not declawed there would be more abandonment and euthanasia of cats because, for example, immuno-suppressed people "can have an increased risk of infection from a simple cat scratch" or "scratches can be harmful to the frail and elderly"
   
3. People accept cat neutering and spaying which is more invasive (so one vet said) so why can't we accept declawing.

The Cat Fanciers Assocation says that the "majority of American veterinarians perform declawing surgery, either routinely suggesting it to clients or as a last resort for cats that would otherwise be euthanized.."

---

Please Note: I like America and Americans but strongly dislike the culture of declawing. Everything that I say or do in relation to the cat is on the basis of treating the cat as I would a person, with respect. Declawing is highly disrespectful of our cat companions - worse, much worse.

---

Note: As I understand it the Supreme Court of America has since 2003 allowed the ban on declawing to proceed in Berkeley as it was claimed to be against the freedom to conduct business.

I would like to address the above arguments:

Decisions on declawing should be made between the veterinarian and the client and without interference from legislators.

Yes, in an ideal world the above statement is true but American Veterinarians have in general shown themselves to be incapable of behaving morally in respect of declawing and are frequently in breach of their code of ethics and oath in this regard. As the American Veterinary Medical Association policy of declawing cats actively, by implication, promotes poor behaviour by vets in relation to declawing of cats there is no other course of action to protect cats from the criminal acts of declawing other than the outright banning of it. And we should all praise and commend the council members and major of Berkeley for being enlightened and courageous enough to see this legislation through. Well done. See: American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat, AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats, Psychology of Declawing. Note: to describe declawing as a "criminal act" is not a biased, subjective or emotional statement but one made in the cold light of the fact that it is exactly that in many countries in Europe, where it is banned. What happened to America?

If cats were not declawed there would be more abandonment and euthanasia of cats

This might be correct but the argument is based on two wrongs making a right and we all know that that is not a good argument. There is a counter argument. Cats that are declawed can and do suffer from behavioral problems such as urinating outside the litter box. This behavior can and probably will lead to cats being relinquished.

In any event, the answer is not in compounding the victimisation of the humble and silent cat companion by killing it because it doesn't fit in (because it is scratching - a natural act), but to better train and educate people to make proper decisions in relation to whether they should keep cats. If all people made decisions as to whether they should keep a cat on the basis that it would be kept intact (and not declawed) then the decision would be made on a sound basis.

If the answer is to not keep a cat that might initially result in more cats in rescue homes but you can't make a right by adopting mutiple wrongs. There has to be a return to sound fundamentals and then the problems of over breeding of cats and feral cats will gradually be resolved. Declawing actually encourages the breeding of cats because it allows people who would not normally keep cats to adopt a declawed one. A person who insists on declawing must be unsuitable to keep a cat because the relationship is based at the outset on the human companion brutally assaulting the cat companion. What kind of relationship is that?!

Unfortunately millions of cat keeping people in America see no problem with declawing. This, I argue is the result of years of indoctrination by American veterinarians insidiously conditioning the public into believing that it is acceptable and pain free bla, bla, bla.

Immuno suppressed people and frail people shouldn't keep cats if it is dangerous as vets seem to say.

People accept cat neutering and spaying which is more invasive so why can't we accept declawing

This sounds like a reasonable argument until you think about it. One way to look at it is to refer to humans. We accept sterilisation of ourselves in many millions because it is a practical way of dealing with a flawed situation. It is the best compromise. Globally one fifth of married couples rely on the sterilization of the female as a birth control measure. In places like India and China the figure is higher at 33% of married couples (Earth Policy Institute).

The best practice way of dealing with and managing the cat population is through sterilisation. The procedure has a profound and important purpose and we do it to ourselves as I said.

99.9% of the time declawing has no purpose other than to protect a person's personal possessions! This is not a good reason. Plus we do not do it to ourselves (amputate the top joint of each finger) as we know it is totally unacceptable. The thought of it is bizarre. We should not do to cat companions what we would not do to ourselves.

I am surprised that educated veterinarians can make such ill conceived arguments in favour of declawing. Perhaps, though, it is not surprising as they were desperately searching for arguments to justify the unjustifiable and they themselves (in large numbers) are also conditioned into believing it is alright. Veterinarians' arguments for declawing are weak and flawed.



From Veterinarians' Arguments for Declawing to Home Page

Psychology of Declawing

The psychology of declawing (Onychectomy) is interesting and very human. This post applies to the United States of America. Declawing (for non-medical reasons) is banned in these countries (this is not a comprehensive list):

• Finland
• Estonia
• the Netherlands
• Germany
• Switzerland
• UK banned under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

"Declawing is legal in most US jurisdictions. It is estimated that 25% of owned cats in the United States are declawed (Patronek 2001)."(src: Wikipedia - verbatim publishing is allowed under CC) -- This translates to about 20 million cats - big bucks (see below).

The psychology of declawing includes the use of language. The word "declawing" is highly misleading and is one of many coping strategies that we as humans have devised either consciously or unconsciously to allow us to deal with the obvious moral wrong of the process. This post deals with some of the methods that we as owners and veterinarians employ to bury the problem.

The psychology of declawing is driven by profit. An immediate point that comes to mind is that behind all the psychological coping strategies the underlying reason for declawing is money (profit). This creates the dilemma which we cope with as described below. This applies to all things to do with animal suffering. And I am afraid to say that vets play a major role. The American Veterinary Medical Association say this about declawing on their website:

Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when their clawing presents a zoonotic risk for its owner(s).

A typical vet who abdicates the responsibility for decision making on declawing to the cat's owner who has no doubt been misinformed by a vet as to the operation. See this post about this vet at this animal hospital for opinion on this.

Comment: Do vets check with the cat's "owner" before carrying out the operation? No, not always it seems. Sometimes vets don't even explain the nature of the operation. The client is often unsure because of the ambiguous nature of the common description "declawing" and the vet technicians are sometimes told not to explain that it involves the removal of the top joint of the claw. This is counter to the ethical process of informed consent. To act like this is:

• misleading
• an obscuring of reality
• a moral disengagement
• using euphemistic language

Veterinary surgeons use emotionally distancing language and decontextualized texts in their text books to the point where they are able to believe that they are meeting their declared purpose namely, "relief of animal suffering", when the procedure, if anything, achieves the opposite. This is the language of the surgeon's textbook:

"The claw is extended by pushing up under the footpad or by grasping it with Allis tissue forceps. A scalpel blade is used to sharply dissect between the second and third phalanx over the top of the ungual crest. The distal interphalangeal joint is disarticulated, and the deep digital flexor tendon is incised.. . . Both techniques effectively remove the entire third phalanx" [this means the amputation of the distal phalanx or part of the toe]

The psychology of declawing includes inadequate (misdirected) leadership by the veterinarian associations (and the legislators). In reference to the American Veterinary Medical Association website statement above, the concept of cats using their claws destructively is ours. For cats it is not destructive. Does the concept of "using its claws destructively" apply to scratching furniture. And if so are clients asking vets to declaw for that purpose? And if a cat scratches us it is frequently due to our lack of prudence or knowledge of a cat's behavior. This our fault and a cat should not lose a part of its toe for this reason. A cat's claws and toes are very important to a cat.

Both client (cat owner) and service provider unwittingly or deliberately collude in the process of making the whole thing acceptable by distancing themselves from the problem:

• socially
• emotionally
  
• psychologically
  
• by considering a cat as a lesser creature despite "being part of the family"
• where there is guilt one blames the other

---

Please Note: I like America and Americans but strongly dislike their seeming acceptance of declawing.

---

Other posts on declawing:

• American Vets are Unethical Towards Cats
  
• Declawing why not detoothing aswell
  
• Helmi Flick on declawing
• Me on declawing
• Cat Claw Control
• The Imperfect Love
  

From Psychology of Declawing to Home Page

Psychology of Declawing - Photo by Feral Indeed! (she's a star) and published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs creative commons License -- this site is for charitable purposes in funding cat rescue.

Primary source: Dana Atwood-Harvey1 Death or Declaw: Dealing with Moral Ambiguity in a Veterinary Hospital - thanks Dana. Sorry if I have murdered your paper.