Cat Declaw Bans Help Both Cats and Veterinarians

Niki Gianni, DVM is the veterinarian at Ravenswood Animal Hospital LLC in Chicago, IL. She is a 2019 graduate of the University of Illinois School of Veterinary Medicine.

Crystal Heath, DVM is a shelter veterinarian, the Executive Director of the non-profit veterinary support organization Our Honor and a 2012 graduate of UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.

Imagine a parent bringing their child into a physician’s office and requesting the doctor remove the top digit of each finger. Every day, people bring their cats to the veterinarian to do just that. Fortunately, the practice is becoming rare, but a new bill, HB1533, which passed the Illinois House of Representatives on March 16, 2023, hopes to ban the cruel practice of cat declawing in Illinois. The legislation would amend the Humane Care for Animals Act and forbid “surgical claw removal, declawing, or a tendonectomy on any cat or otherwise alter a cat’s toes, claws, or paws to prevent or impair the normal function of the cat’s toes, claws, or paws, except for a therapeutic purpose.”

Onychectomy, also called de-knuckling, is a major surgical procedure that involves amputating the last bone in each of a cat’s paws, severing the tendons, nerves, and ligaments in their toes, permanently preventing them from performing typical feline behaviors. For many decades, clients have asked veterinarians for elective declawing surgery to save their furniture from their cats. Declawing provides no benefit to the cat. An American Association of Feline Practitioners survey found that a majority of the 1,200 veterinarians surveyed support legislative bans on declawing. This is why, as veterinarians, we fully support HB1533, and urge the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA) to join us in supporting this bill.

Disturbingly, the ISVMA currently opposes this bill, stating in an email that “we oppose HB1533 not to protect the procedure, but to protect our profession from unnecessary and inappropriate legislative interference in exercising our medical judgment. We oppose HB1533 because we firmly believe that veterinary decisions should be made by those who are appropriately educated and trained to make such decisions.” Contrary to the ISVMA’s assertion, opposition to HB1533 harms our profession by compromising our reputation as caring advocates for animals.

Furthermore, continued legal declawing for non-therapeutic reasons pressures veterinarians to perform these harmful and unethical operations. The absence of a prohibition unfairly burdens practitioners with the additional sensitive task of trying to convince clients to not mutilate their cats. By fighting legislation that seeks to protect animals, the ISVMA is turning its back on the well-being of cats as well as the veterinarians who seek only to ensure animal well-being.

ISVMA opposition to HB1533 belies the safety of the procedure. Data shows just how damaging declawing procedures can be on a cat’s mental health and the likelihood that the guardian can continue to keep the cat in their home. A 2017 study showed declawed cats were more than four times more likely to bite, three times more likely to be aggressive, nearly three times more likely to have back pain, three times more likely to excessively self-groom, and seven times more likely to avoid the litter box. Changes in litter box habits are one of the most commonly reported reasons for surrendering cats to shelters, according to a six-year retrospective study. Sadly, shelter cats with a bite history are more than four times more likely to be returned; if they were adopted, their biting can result in serious injury and lawsuits.

Opponents of declaw bans claim that without declawing available as an option, feline guardians will surrender their cats. However, data doesn’t support that claim. A 2022 study found that after a declaw ban was passed in British Columbia, there was no change in the number of cats relinquished to the animal shelter system.

Distressingly, the ISVMA is urging members to contact their representatives and voice opposition to HB1533. Their call to action doesn’t mention scientific data, but instead uses the story of a 14-year-old cat who playfully scratches her older, disabled caretaker’s legs. Here, the ISVMA is making an appeal to sympathy—hoping to sway lawmakers with fears that some cat guardians will be forced to give up their feline friends if they can’t be declawed. The emotional anecdote fails to note that it’s statistically likely the older cat might start biting the caretaker or urinating outside the litter box as a consequence of being declawed— behaviors that could increase the cat’s likelihood of being surrendered and reduce her chances of ever being adopted.

Reflecting humanity’s growing empathy for animals, many states and municipalities have already introduced and, in some cases, passed legislation that bans or limits declawing. These include a diverse collection of jurisdictions from New York to California, to counties like Lehigh, Pennsylvania and Volusia, Florida, and to cities like San Francisco. Additionally, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Germany, and many other countries have enacted laws expressly prohibiting declawing.

Opponents of declaw bans may point out that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) also opposes legislation banning declawing “because, in rare cases, the procedure may be justifiable as a last resort to prevent euthanasia.” Similar to the issues with the ISVMA’s stance, the ASPCA’s opposition doesn’t take into consideration the fact that declawing leads to adverse outcomes which increase the likelihood of euthanasia. Additionally, there is no evidence that declaw bans lead to an increase in euthanasia in the regions where those bans have passed. This is why groups like the Humane Society, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, and the Paw Project, all support legislation that outlaws declawing.

Judging by the recent letters to the editor ISVMA president Joanne Carlson published in the Northwest Herald and Chicago Sun-Times, the ISVMA is hoping HB1533 won’t pass the Illinois Senate. Though the ISVMA’s apparent authority and lobbying efforts often sway lawmakers, recent pro-animal legislation in Illinois has been successful despite ISVMA opposition this isn’t always the case. Legislators look to the ISVMA as the representative body of veterinarians who are supposed to be authorities in animal welfare. The ISVMA opposed a bill that would protect people who rescued animals trapped in hot cars from civil liability; sadly that bill did not pass.

ISVMA’s opposition is a position not based on science, but instead on political ideology—one that prioritizes opposition to any regulation of our profession despite the possibility that such regulation will benefit our patients, our colleagues, and our clients. The ISVMA’s own email to members states its desire to “protect our profession from unnecessary and inappropriate legislative interference in exercising our medical judgment.” If HB1533 were to pass, it would undermine the ISVMA’s mission to keep the State of Illinois from regulating veterinarians. Ultimately, the ISVMA’s stance harms cats as well as individual practitioners who want to serve the best interests of their patients.

As veterinarians, we took an oath to work for “the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering.” Veterinarian support of this bill is consistent with this oath. Illinois, along with the rest of the nation, must follow the science and lead efforts to advance bills that protect animals. ISVMA must change course and support HB1533.

 

---

Leon, S C., J A. Flanders, J M. Scarlett, S Ayers, and K A. Houpt. “Attitudes of Owners Regarding Tendonectomy and Onychectomy in Cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Association 218, no. 1 (2001): 43-47. Accessed March 17, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.218.43.

Bennett, B S., K A. Houpt, H N. Erb. “Effects of Declawing on Feline Behavior.” Companion Animal Practice 2, no. 12 (1988): 7-12. Accessed March 17, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279390787057766

Liu, S., S. Wailani, S. Welsh, J M. Berger. “A six-year retrospective study of outcomes of surrendered cats (Felis catus) with periuria in a no-kill shelter.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior 42, no. 1 (2021): 75-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.12.002

Ellis, A., K. van Haaften, A. Protopopova, E. Gordon. “Effect of a provincial feline onychectomy ban on cat intake and euthanasia in a British Columbia animal shelter system.” Journal of feline medicine and surgery 24 no. 1 (2022): 739–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X211043820