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