BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    







           ---------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Hearing Date:June 14, 2004     |Bill No:AB                |
          |                               |1857                      |
           ---------------------------------------------------------- 


                    SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
                             Senator Liz Figueroa, Chair

                        Bill No:        AB 1857Author:Koretz
                  As Introduced:     February 2, 2004   Fiscal: Yes

          
          SUBJECT:   Animal cruelty: exotic or native wild cat  
          declawing.
          
          SUMMARY: Makes it a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a  
          county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine of  
          $10,000, or by both, to declaw any cat that is a member of an  
          exotic or native wild cat species, as defined.

          Existing law:

          1)Prohibits cruelty to animals, as specified. 

          2)Provides that, with certain exceptions, every person who  
            maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures,  
            wounds, or kills a living animal is guilty of an  
            alternate felony/misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment  
            in a state prison or a county jail; or by a fine of  
            $20,000; or by both.  

          3)Specifies that it shall be a misdemeanor for any owner or  
            manager of an elephant to engage in abusive behavior  
            towards the elephant or to use certain methods as  
            specified to discipline the elephant, such as deprivation  
            of food, water or rest, or use of electricity, or  
            physical punishment resulting in damage, scarring, or  
            breakage of skin. 

          4)States that it is a misdemeanor to cut the solid part of  
            the tail of any horse in the operation known as "docking"  
            or in any other operation performed for the purpose of  
            shortening the tail of any horse in California.






                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 2



          5)Regulates the practice of veterinary medicine under the  
            Veterinary Medicine Practice Act.  

          6)States that a person practices veterinary medicine when  
            he or she performs a surgical or dental operation upon an  
            animal, among other things, and specifies that a  
            veterinarian may provide veterinary care to any wild  
            animal as defined.

          7)Specifies that the Department of Food and Agriculture may  
            grant a permit to import into, possess, or transport  
            within this state any wild animal as defined, but exempts  
            zoos from the permit requirement.


          This bill:

          1)Provides that no person may perform, procure or arrange  
            for the performance of surgical claw removal on an exotic  
            or native wild cat, and shall not otherwise alter the  
            cat's claws or paws to prevent his or her normal  
            function.

          2)States that this prohibition does not apply to a  
            procedure performed solely for a therapeutic purpose.

          3)Defines "declawing" and "onychectomy" as any surgical  
            procedure in which a portion of the animal's paw is  
            amputated in order to remove the animal's claws.

          4)States that "tendonectomy" is a procedure in which the  
            tendons to an animal's limbs, paws, or toes are cut or  
            modified so that the claws cannot be extended.

          5)Provides that "exotic or native wild cat species"  
            includes all members of the taxonomic family Felidae,  
            except domestic cats (Felis catus or Felis domesticus) or  
            hybrids of wild and domestic cats that are greater than  
            three generations removed from an exotic or native cat.

          6)States that "exotic or native wild cat species" include,  
            but are not limited, to lions, tigers, cougars, leopards,  
            lynxes, bobcats, caracals, ocelots, margays, servals,  
            cheetahs, snow leopards, clouded leopards, jungle cats,  
            leopard cats and jaguars, or any hybrid thereof.






                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 3



          7)Defines "therapeutic purpose" for the purpose of  
            addressing an existing or recurring infection, disease,  
            injury, or abnormal condition in the claw that  
            jeopardizes the cat's health, where addressing the  
            infection, disease, injury or abnormal condition is a  
            medical necessity.

          8)Provides that any person who violates the provisions of  
            this bill is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by  
            imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed  
            one year, by a fine of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or  
            by both.

          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the April 14, 2004 analysis of  
          the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, there are  
          unknown, likely minor, nonreimbursable local incarceration  
          costs, offset to a degree by fine revenue.

          COMMENTS:
          
          1.Purpose.  This measure is sponsored by the The Paw  
            Project (PAW).  According to PAW, this bill will protect  
            native, wild and exotic cat species such as lions and  
            tigers from the painful and unnecessary surgical  
            procedure known as "declawing."  Declawing, as PAW  
            argues, is an inhumane procedure that is not medically  
            necessary, provides no benefit to the cat and inflicts  
            pain and suffering.  The effects of declawing are  
            particularly debilitating for these big cats.
          2.Background.  

          Effects On The Cat If They Are Declawed.  PAW contends that  
            the practice of animal declawing is viewed by many  
            veterinarians and animal experts as an act of cruelty.   
            Most Californians who have declawed their cat, including  
            animal lovers, have no idea what they put their pet  
            through.  Declawing literally involves amputating part of  
            the cat's paws and causes pain and discomfort.  Most  
            people do not realize that a portion of the bone - not  
            just nail - is removed.  It is comparable to cutting off  
            part of the human finger at the last joint.

          Contrary to most people's idea of declawing, the surgery  
            involves severing not just the claws but bone, ligaments,  
            and tendons.  Complications of this amputation can be  
            excruciating pain, damage to the radial nerve,  





                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 4



            hemorrhage, bone chips that prevent healing, painful  
            regrowth of the deformed claw inside of the paw, and  
            chronic back and joint pain as shoulder, leg and back  
            muscles weaken.  Many cats also suffer a loss of balance  
            since they can no longer achieve a secure foothold on  
            their stumps.  Declawed cats can and do also suffer  
            behavioral disorders, such as not using the litter box  
            due to discomfort in their feet and may use the rest of  
            the house as their litter box.  They also have trouble  
            jumping and landing; and in some severe cases, both  
            domestic and wild cats have become lame and even  
            paralyzed.   A cat's first defense mechanisms are their  
            claws; when these are gone, cats bite.  

          In reality, a declawed cat is actually a clubfooted animal.  
             A declawed cat cannot walk normally but must forever  
            move with his or her weight back on the rear of his or  
            her pads.  Posture is irrevocably altered and gone is the  
            easeful gait that is his or her birthright.  Declawed  
            cats are 75% defenseless and live in a constant state of  
            stress that can affect their health and make them more  
            prone to disease.  Cats use their claws as a means of  
            communication, much like we use our voices.  A declawed  
            cat is much like a person without a larynx.

          Who Owns These Cats, Where Do They Live, and Why Are They  
            Declawed?  According to PAW, declawed, native and exotic  
            wild cats are owned by animal sanctuaries, private zoos,  
            individuals with working animals (e.g., those used in  
            entertainment), wildlife educational organizations, and  
            private parties. There are dozens of sanctuaries in  
            California, such as Wildlife Waystaytion, Shambala, and  
            Nature of Wildworks.  In general, the declawed animals  
            that live there were declawed by individual owners.  Many  
            arrive at the sanctuaries after they were confiscated as  
            illegal pets by regulatory or enforcement agencies, such  
            as the Department of Fish and Game.  

          Many or most large sanctuaries, such as those named above,  
            do not declaw cats.  However, many of the smaller, less  
            experienced ones will declaw and so will the small  
            collections of animals whose owners have wild animals  
            available for school educational programs, as well as  
            birthdays and bar mitzvahs.  

          According to PAW, the cats are declawed with the intention  





                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 5



            that they will be made safer to handle.  The experience  
            of PAW is that declawing is often done routinely and  
            without regard to consequences.  Several owners of small  
            animal collections were not even aware that declawing  
            involved amputation of the terminal bone of each toe.  If  
            declawing is done to 'disarm' a big cat, it should be  
            obvious that the teeth are a bigger threat to people than  
            the claws.  A perfect example of this is the Roy Horn  
            incident.  The opinion of many animal handlers is that  
            declawed cats, deprived of their primary means of  
            defense, are more likely to bite if provoked.

          Is There a Widespread Problem With Declawing of Cats?   
            According to PAW, there are hundreds, and probably well  
            over one thousand, declawed wild cats in captivity in  
            California.  Studies suggest that many, if not all of  
            these animals will develop complications from declawing,  
            resulting in pain and/or shortened life expectancy.   
            Small sanctuaries come and go, on average existing for  
            just a few years.   As a result, there are many people  
            involved with these sanctuaries that have little  
            experience with wild cats.  

          PAW has found that many of these individuals have no idea  
            of the significant complications that can result from  
            declawing.  Although they observe lameness in these cats,  
            they often incorrectly attribute it to arthritis or other  
            disease.  Even if the intentions of the owners are not  
            malicious, declawing of big cats is cruel and  
            unnecessary.  A ban on declawing will reduce the needless  
            suffering of captive felines in California and will  
            educate the owners of the cats about the consequences of  
            declawing.

          The cost of declawing to the state is probably negligible,  
            but the cost to California citizens to treat the paws of  
            a single declawed wild cat can cost from $3,000 to $6,000  
            depending on whether only the front paws or all four paws  
            have been declawed.  A conservative estimate is that it  
            would require $4 million to repair the paws of all the  
            declawed cats in California; money that could be better  
            used to take care of other needs of animals.   Often the  
            original owners of the cats (even if they were 'working'  
            cats) do not incur these costs, since the cats often end  
            up in nonprofit sanctuaries that depend on private  
            donations.





                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 6




          Position of the American Veterinary Medicine Association  
            (AVMA).  
          As PAW points out, the January 2004 issue of the Journal of  
            the American Veterinary Medicine reported that the AVMA  
            has approved a position statement that "opposes declawing  
            of captive exotic and other wild indigenous cats for  
            non-medical reasons."  According to the Journal, the  
            AVMA's Animal Welfare Committee developed the statement  
            with input from the American Association of Zoo  
            Veterinarians and American Association of Wildlife  
            Veterinarians.  The Journal states that "because of their  
            size, weight, and environment, exotic and wild cats  
            commonly experience adverse effects when onychectomy is  
            performed.  Therefore, the Welfare Committee believes the  
            procedure is ill advised for these cats unless required  
            for medical reasons."

          PAW believes that because AVMA is taking this position, and  
            since only about one-half of the vets in California are  
            members of the AVMA, and the other one-half seem to be  
            members of the California Veterinary Medical Association,  
            it is even more important to have this policy codified in  
            statute to avoid inconsistencies in veterinary medicine  
            in California.

          Declawing is Illegal or Not "Accepted Practice" in Many  
            Countries.  According to the International Fund for  
            Animal Welfare (IFAW), the practice of delawing is  
            illegal or not "accepted practice" in many countries  
            around the world, including the United Kingdom, the  
            Republic of Northern Ireland, Scandinavia, Netherlands,  
            Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy,  
            Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, Australia,  
            New Zealand, and Brazil.  Great Britain's Royal College  
            of Veterinary Surgeons goes so far as to declare  
            declawing "unnecessary mutilation." As the IFAW points  
            out, this global consensus against declawing is based on  
            the physical and behavioral complications that cats  
            experience from the procedure.  

          3.Previous Legislation.  AB 395 (Koretz) from last year  
            (2003) would have prohibited licensed veterinarians from  
            performing or arranging surgical declawing of  any   
            domestic or exotic cat.  This measure failed passage in  
            the Assembly Business and Professions Committee.





                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 7




          4.Arguments in Support.  There are numerous animal  
            organizations and groups who support this measure.  The  
            proponents are in agreement that the practice of  
            declawing exotic and wild cats is extremely inhumane and  
            completely unnecessary.  They argue that because of the  
            size, weight, and environment, exotic and wild cats  
            experience adverse effects when declawing is performed.   
            Proponents also note that animal declawing is outlawed by  
            most industrialized nations and that the AMVA opposes  
            declawing of captive and other wild cats for non-medical  
            reasons. It is argued that few veterinarians will perform  
            the declawing procedures on a native or exotic wild cat  
            given the potential long-term damage it can cause to  
            these large felines.

          Proponents contend that the primary reason for declawing is  
            for the convenience of animal handlers and trainers but  
            that it serves absolutely no beneficial purpose for the  
            animals themselves, rather it causes the animals nothing  
            but pain and lifelong suffering.  

          5.Arguments in Opposition.  The bill is opposed by some  
            exotic animal facilities and veterinarians who perform  
            the declawing procedure on exotic cats.  The owners of  
            the facilities argue that the declawing procedure allows  
            professionals to  handle exotic cats safely eliminating  
            the risk of claw injuries to trainers and talent.   
            Declawing also prevents claw-inflicted injuries to  
            animals (cage mates) that can result in scarring, severe  
            infection, and death.  They will now be unable to obtain  
            insurance if they do not declaw their exotic cats.  This  
            bill does nothing more than criminalizes an otherwise  
            lawful procedure performed for rational reasons and not  
            malicious intent.

          The veterinarians contend that the primary reason to declaw  
            an exotic cat is to eliminate claw-afflicted trauma to  
            compound animals and/or mates when animals are maintained  
            in pairs or groups;  to prevent injury to a person or  
            persons who, of necessity, must be in physical contact  
            with a non-domestic cat; and, they say that to maintain  
            the integrity of the environment in which an exotic cat  
            is housed such as preventing climbing or digging out of  
            these facilities.  By not allowing declawing under these  
            circumstances, exotic cats become both a danger to  





                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 8



            themselves and for those who are in close contact with  
            them on a regular basis.  There may be severe injuries  
            and consequences that result with exotic cats that are  
            not declawed.  The veterinarians also argue that it is  
            their experience that there are generally few if any  
            adverse post-operative problems and no psychological  
            impact to the animals that they have observed.  They also  
            contend that banning declawing in California will only  
            cause declawing to be outsourced to other states.

          The  Cat Fanciers' Association  (CFA) opposes any legislative  
            attempts to target veterinary elective surgical  
            procedures.  As argued by CFA, few declawing procedures  
            are executed on exotic/wild cats in California so there  
            is no pressing need for this law, and the option to  
            declaw should remain available to experienced individuals  
            based on their veterinarian's professional judgment and  
            advice.  CFA objects to the criminalization of a lawful  
            procedure that is safe when competently performed and  
            possibly necessary for other than "medical necessity" for  
            exotic cats.

          The  Animal Council  opposes this bill and argues that this  
            law would intrude on the veterinarian-client  
            relationship, that the term "medical necessity" is a  
            vague and uncertain standard and that veterinarians would  
            not risk performing declawing based on this standard  
            because of the criminal penalties, and that a policy  
            stated by AVMA regarding declawing of exotic animals  
            should not be used to create a crime that could ruin a  
            veterinarian's career.

          6.Are the Penalties for Declawing Too Severe?  In  
            discussions by Committee Staff with the Senate Public  
            Safety Committee, it was indicated that jail time seems  
            excessive, especially if those prosecuted would  
            potentially be licensed veterinarians, and that the  
            Committee may want to consider, rather than jail time, a  
            fine only.  It was suggested by the Public Safety  
            Committee that a $5,000 fine would be more appropriate  
            considering other related offenses within the Penal Code.  
             Also, a $5,000 fine is consistent with the maximum fine  
            that can be levied against a veterinarian for violations  
            of their Practice Act.

          





                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 9










          SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
          
           Support:    PAW Project (Sponsor)
                          Actors and Others for Animals
                          American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty  
          to Animals (ASPCA)
                    Animal Kingdom Veterinary Hospital
                    Animal Protection Institute (API)
                    Animals Anonymous
                    Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
                    Best Friends Animal Society
                    California Federation for Animal Legislation
                    California Lobby for Animal Welfare
                    California Wildlife Center
                    Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition
                    Contra Costa Humane Society
                    Defense of Animals
                    Doris Day Animal League
                    Friends of the Folsom Zoo, Inc.
                    Fund for Animals
                    Heal the Bay, Santa Monica
                    Hemopet/Hemolife, Santa Monica
                    Humane Society of the United States
                    International Fund for Animal Welfare
                    Last Chance for Animals (LCA)
                    Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals
                    Nature of Wildworks
                    North County Humane Society, Atascadero
                    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
                    Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS)
                    Rescue Angels, Inc.
                    Roar Foundation
                    Second Chance Animal Rescue and Adoptions
                    Thunderhawk Big Cat Rescue
                    United Animal Nations
                          Numerous Individuals

            Opposition:    Animal Council
           Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc.





                                                                    AB 1857
                                                                     Page 10



           Leopards, Etc
           Wild Things (Animal Rentals, Inc.)
           Several Veterinarians


          Consultant: Bill Gage