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