sr-102709-7c~~
;tYo, City Council Report
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: October 27, 2009
Agenda Item: ~ -~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Ordinance Adding Section 4.04.275 Banning
Onychectomy and Flexor Tenonectomy Procedures
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Council consider introducing on first reading the attached
proposed ordinance which would ban performing, assisting in performing and procuring
onychectomies and flexor tenonectomies, which are declawing procedures, on cats in
Santa Monica.
Executive Summary
A change in state law, effective at the beginning of next year, will preempt cities from
banning cat declawing procedures. In response to this change, animal rights advocates
recently appeared before Council to urge that Santa Monica quickly consider and adopt
a declawing ban. In response, Council directed legal staff to prepare an ordinance
banning declawing. The attached proposed ordinance fulfills that direction.
Background
In recent years, as support for animal rights has grown, members of the public have
appeared before Council advocating for, or opposing the adoption of a local law
prohibiting declawing. A proposal to direct staff to prepare an ordinance banning
declawing was considered in 2004, but was not adopted. Advocates of a declawing ban
again appeared before Council on September 9, 2009.
Discussion
Supporters of declawing bans argue that declawing procedures are inhumane and
unnecessary. Specifically, they argue that, among other things, such procedures are
painful to the cat, endanger and degrade its. health, deprive the cat of the ability to
defend itself, and frequently cause behavioral problems, including increased biting and
1
aversion to the use of a litter box. Additionally, proponents of such legislation have
argued that declawed cats are likely to be relegated to living outdoors (because of these
behavioral problems) where they cannot defend themselves against attacks by other
animals and may pose a danger to others by, for instance, causing traffic accidents.
Furthermore, they argue that declawed cats are very likely to be relinquished to
shelters, thus increasing the cost to the public of shelter operation. And, once at the
shelters, declawed cats are largely unadoptable, which further increases costs by
necessitating euthanasia.
Opponents of such legislation, including the California Veterinary Medical Association,
argue that: the decision to declaw or not should be left to the cat owner and- the cat's
doctor; veterinarians recognize the seriousness of the procedures and perform them as
a last resort; the option of declawing should be preserved because, in some cases, it is
necessary or advisable to protect the cat's health; that possible detrimental effects of
the procedures are exaggerated and not scientifically based; that cat owners in Santa
Monica will simply drive out of the City to procure the procedures; and that
immunocompromised owners, who are particularly at risk from scratches, may abandon
their pets if they cannot procure the procedures.
So far, several California cities have considered declawing prohibitions, but only West
Hollywood has adopted one. However, at least twenty-one other countries prohibit the
procedures. With the impending change in state law, the City will lose its ability to
legislate ih this area.
The attached proposed ordinance is virtually identical to West Hollywood's in content.
The format was simplified for the sake of clarity and the findings were modified to reflect
information and suggestions received by Council.
2
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There would be no financial impacts attendant upon adopting the ordinance assuming
that it would be enforced by existing personnel.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
3
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
City Council Meeting: 10-27-2009
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTION 4:04.275 TO
THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE BANNING
ONYCHECTOMY AND FLEXOR TENONECTOMY PROCEDURES
WHEREAS, onychectomy, or declawing, and flexor tendonectomy procedures
are routinely performed on cats even though the procedures are painful, cruel and
dangerous to the cats and are very seldom medically necessary; and
WHEREAS, onychectomy is not a "cosmetic" procedure but is instead akin to
amputation in that it involves removing not just claws, but also bones, nerves, joint
capsules, collateral ligaments and extensor and flexor tendons up to the joint; and
WHEREAS, in human terms, this procedure is akin to cutting. off the last joint of
all ten fingers; and
WHEREAS, at least twenty-one European countries have concluded that
declawing cats is inhumane and have therefore banned the procedure; and
WHEREAS, research has demonstrated that the rate of complications from
onychectomies is relatively high as compared to other "routine" procedures, with one
1
study reporting acute short term complications in 50% of cases and long-term
complications in 20% of cases; and
WHEREAS, these complications include excruciating pain, damage to the radial
nerve, hemorrhage, bone chips, chronic back and joint pain resulting from weakened
shoulders, legs and back muscles and painful re-growth of a deformed claws inside the
paws; and
WHEREAS, this procedure robs cats of integrat means of movement and
defense, normal posture, normal use of toes in walking and running, and their ability to
satisfy instinctive impulses to climb, exercise and mark territory; and
WHEREAS, consequently, declawing causes serious secondary health risks to
cats such as arthritis and other complications associated with postural and skeletal
changes; and
WHEREAS, declawing also leaves cats unable to defend itself against attacks by
other animals, placing cats at risk of serious injury or death; and
WHEREAS, flexor tendonectomy, a procedure in which cats' toes are cut so that
the claws cannot be extended, likewise deprives cats the ability to engage in normal
behaviors and defend themselves against attack and thereby imperils its health and
safety; and
WHEREAS, these procedures are usually undertaken not for the welfare of cats,
but for the perceived convenience of owners, caretakers and other persons who often
procure the procedures to protect their furniture and other personal property and without
adequate information about complications and consequences; and
2
WHEREAS, alternatives that involve no harm or risk to cats are readily available
to protect furniture and other property; they include regular nail trimming, training cats to
use scratch posts, using deterrent pheromone spray, covering furniture, restricting
access to certain areas of homes, using plastic nail covers, and more; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the harm these procedures cause to cats, they also
have detrimental consequences for humans; and
WHEREAS, research has shown that declawed cats are more prone to defend
themselves by biting people and other animals, and cat bites are associated with higher
infection rates than scratches; and
WHEREAS, research has shown that declawed cats tend to avoid use of litter
boxes because the rough surface hurts their paws, and this causes sanitation problems
and attendant health risks to humans and other animals; and
WHEREAS, behavioral problems of declawed cats, such as increased biting and
litter-box aversion, frequently result in declawed cats being relegated to an outdoor
existence to which they are ill-suited because, among other things, they cannot
adequately defend themselves;
WHEREAS, cats living outdoors in urban environments often end up on
roadways where they are in danger themselves and where they cause accidents and
thereby imperile people; and.
WHEREAS, declawing cats and attendant behavioral problems also increase the
number of cats relinquished to animal shelters; and
WHEREAS, declawed cats are generally not adoptable from shelters because of
their behavioral and other problems, and they are therefore usually euthanized; and
3
WHEREAS, the public bears the burden of increased costs of shelter operation
and euthanasia: and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, empowers the City
of Santa Monica to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other
ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general law; and
WHEREAS, at present, the law of the State of California does not prohibit the
City from acting to prohibit onychectomy and flexor tendonectomy: and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting these procedures, subject to
exceptions necessary to protect the health of individual cats, will protect and promote
the general health, safety and welfare of cats and humans alike.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.04.275 is hereby added to
read as follows:
Section 4.04.275 Prohibition Against Procuring, Performing Or Assisting
in Performing Onychectomv (Declawing) or Flexor Tendonectomv
(a) Prohibition - No licensed medical professional or other person shall
perform, assist in the performance of, or procure the performance of an
onychectomy (declawing) or flexor tendonectomy procedure by any means on
any cat within the City.
4
(b) Exception - Notwithstanding subsection (a), an onychectomy
(declawing) or flexor tendonectomy procedure may be performed within the City
if the procedure is necessary to address a medical condition of the cat, such as
an existing or recurring illness, infection disease injury or abnormal condition in
the claw, that compromises the animal's health. This exception does not allow
procedures undertaken for cosmetic or aesthetic reasons or for any person's
convenience. ,
(c) Penalty - Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of
misdemeanor and shall be fined in an amount not to exceed $500.00 or be
imprisoned for a period of six months, or both.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent ,jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional:
5
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
6
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ ~ -~~
ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONSOCT 2 7 2009
~~ COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE MUTILATION OF ANIMALS
~'` ~ (abridged)
=u
-, ~ ;,
-" 1. BACKGROUND
(i) The establishment of the Working Party resulted from the Royal College Council's involvement in the
controversial issue of the docking of dogs' tails. Council recognised that this was a procedure which could
be dealt with satisfactorily only by legislation, but appreciated also that it was unlikely that Parliamentary
time would be found to deal with a single procedure. It seemed more reasonable to hope that
Government would be prepared to make time available for a Bill seeking to ban or control a number of
undesirable procedures if these could be identified and accordingly it would be wise to consider the field
of animal mutilations as a whole....
2. TERMS OF REFERENCE
The reconvened Working Party adopted the following fresh terms of reference:
"To consider animal mutilations in general with a view to pressing for the banning of a number of
mutilations by statute or other appropriate means."
3. WHAT IS A MUTILATION?
The reconvened Working Party confirmed that, although the term 'mutilation' was an emotive one,
carrying with it, in common usage, implications of maiming and disfigurement, there was no satisfactory
alternative term which would suffice for its purposes. Accordingly it was agreed to continue to make
reference to mutilations on the understanding that the term should be understood as covering all
procedures, carried out with or without instruments which involve interference with the sensitive tissues or
the bone structure of an animal, and are carried out for non -therapeutic reasons....
4. CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED
The Working Party confirmed that procedures which were carried out solely for therapeutic purposes were
normally acceptable....
5. PROCEDURES CONSIDERED
A list of the procedures considered by the Working Party is set out in alphabetical order in Appendix A. It
will be appreciated that, for the sake of completeness, several procedures were looked at although they
are already covered by legislation. In each case the Working Party considered that the legislative
provisions were satisfactory. The remaining procedures were assessed for acceptability and it was
considered possible to categorise all the procedures wnsidered under the following headings;
A: Procedures already satisfactorily covered by legislation and requiring no further action.
B: Procedures which are acceptable...
C. Procedures which are unacceptable...
APPENDIX A ...
PROCEDURE PRIMARY PROPOSED
CONSIDERATIONS CATEGORY
Claws, removal Practical C(i)
...APPENDIX B
Reasons for assignment of particular cateoories to individual procedure...
Claws, removal of
• This procedure is only acceptable where, in the opinion of the veterinary surgeon, injury to the
animal is likely to occur during normal activity. It is not acceptable if carried out for the
convenience of the owner. Thus the removal of dew claws in certain breeds of dog where they
protrude from the limb and are likely to become caught and torn is justifiable and even advisable.
On the other hand, the removal of claws, particularly those which are weight-bearing, to preclude
damage to furnishings is not acceptable....
d -~ ~" ' L
OCT 2 7 2009
The Paw Project • PO Box 445, Santa Monica, CA 90406 • info@pawprojed.com • (877) PAW-PROJECT
Countries in which declawing is already illegal:
Switzerland
http /Jwww animallaw info/nonus/statutes/stchapa1978.htm
Section 8: Prohibited Practices
Article 22.
2. It is also forbidden:
g. to cut off the claws of cats and other felines, to clip or prick the ears of dogs, to remove the vocal
organs or employ other methods to prevent animals from giving tongue or reacting to pain in another
audible manner;
Austria
http//www.ris.bka.gv.at/erv/erv 2004 1 118.pdf
§ 7. (1) Interventions carried out for other than therapeutic or diagnostic purposes or for the expert
marking of animals in accordance with legal regulations applicable, are prohibited, in particular
5. declawing and defanging,
Germany
http //www animallaw.info/nonus/statutes/stdeawa1998.htm
Article 6
(1) The amputation of all or part of parts of the body or the removal or destruction of all or parts of
organs or tissues of a vertebrate shall be prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply if:
1. the operation in the specific case
a) is necessary according to veterinary indication...
Sweden
http //www sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/58/44/53180d5d.pdf
Surgical procedures etc.
Section 10
(1) Animals must not 6e subjected to surgical procedures or given injections except where they
are necessary for veterinary medical reasons.
Croatia
http'//www priiatelii-zivotinia.hr/index.en.php?id=470
Procedures prohibited for the purpose of protecting animals
Article 4
(2) It is prohibited to:
17. cut off sensitive parts of the body of live animals,
Interventions on animals
Article 8
(1) The partial or total amputation of a sensitive part of the body of an animal shall be prohibited,
including:
1. the marking of animals contrary to the provisions of special regulations,
2. ear cropping and tail docking in dogs, declawing of cats, devocalisation and other interventions aimed
at changing the phenotypic appearance of the animal.
(2) Byway of derogation from the provision of paragraph 1 of this Article, the partial or total amputation or
removal of a sensitive part of the body of an animal shall be permitted if performed with prior anaesthesia
and post-operative analgesia and if an intervention:
1. is justified for animal health reasons,
Malta
htto //www commonlii.org/mt/legis/consol act/awa128.odf
Part V -Surgical Operations on Animals
Surgical operations.
The Paw Project • PO Box 445, Santa Monica, CA 90406 • info@pawproject.com • (877) PAW-PROJECT
9. (1) Surgical operations for the purpose of modifying the appearance of an animal by which any part of
the animal's body is removed or damaged, other than for a curative purpose, shall be illegal.
Council of Europe
http://conventions.coe.int/TreatylCommun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=125&CM=8&DF=9/1 /2006&C~=ENG
Article 10 -Surgical operations
1. Surgical operations for the purpose of modifying the appearance of a pet animal or for other non-
curative purposes shall be prohibited and, in particular:
a. the docking of tails;
b. the cropping of ears;
c. devocalisation;
d. declawing and defanging;
The signatories to this convention as of 1!9/2006 were:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey
World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA)
There are also a number of national vet associations that are signatories to the WSAVA Conventions. In
those countries it could be said that the vet find declawing, as it is performed in the US, unethical.
http:J/www.wsava. org/Conventi. htm
Section 10
Non-therapeutic surgical operations on companion animals
i) Surgical operations for the purpose of modifying the appearance of a
companion animal for non-therapeutic purposes should be actively discouraged.
ii) Where possible legislation should be enacted to prohibit the performance
of non-therapeutic surgical procedures for purely cosmetic purpdses, in particular;
a. Docking of tails;
b. Cropping of ears;
a Devocalisation;
d. Declawing and defanging.
iii) Exceptions to these prohibitions should be permitted only:
a. If a veterinarian considers that the particular surgical procedure is necessary,
either for veterinary medical reasons or where euthanasia is the only alternative....
These are the signatory organizations:
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia Herzegovina
British Columbia
Columbia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
AVEACA Asociacion de Veterinarios Especialistas en Animates de
Companfa de Argentina
AVA Australian Veterinary Association
VOEK Vereinigung Oesterreichischer Kleintiermadiziner (AUSTRIA)
SAVAB Small Animal Veterinary Association Belgium
The Paw Project • PO Box 445, Santa Monica, CA 90406 • infoC•?pawproject.com • (877) PAW-PR07ECT
BHSAVA Bosnia-Herzegovina Small Animal Veterinary Association
BCVMA British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association
AVEPA Asociacion de Veterinarios Espanoles Especialistas en
Pequenos Animales (SPAIN)
VEPA Columbias (COLUMBIA)
CSAVS Croatian Small Animal Veterinary Section
CSAVA Czech Small Animal Veterinary Association
DSAVA Danish Small Animal Veterinary Association
ESAVA Estonian Small Animal Veterinary Association
FAVP Finnish Association of Veterinary Practitioners
HVMS Hellenic Veterinary Multinational Society (GREECE)
HKVA Hong Kong Veterinary Association
HSAVA Hungarian Small Animal Veterinary Association
VICAS Veterinary Ireland Companion Animal Society
ICAVA Israel Companion Animal Veterinary Association
Italy
Italy
Japan
Lithuania
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Panama
Poland
South Africa
Spain
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Uruguay
AIVPA Associazione Italiana Veterinari Piccoli Animali
SCIVAC Society Culturale Italiana Veterinari per Animali
da Compagnia
JSAVA Japanese Small Animal Veterinary Association
LSAVA Lithuanian Small Animal Veterinary Association
SAPAM Small Animal Practitioners Association Malaysia,
now Malaysia Smalt Animal Veterinary Association (MSAVA)
AMMVEPE Asociacion Mexicans de Medicos Veterinarios Especialistas
en Pequenas Especies
NACAM Netherlands Association for Companion Animal Medicine
NZVA CAS New Zealand Veterinary Association -Companion Animal Society
NSAVA Norwegian Small Animal Veterinary Association
PSAVA Polish Small Animal Veterinary Association
SAVA South African Veterinary Association
AVEPA Asociacion de Veterinarios Espanoles Especialistas en
Pequenos Animales (SPAIN)
TVMA Taipei Veterinary Medical Association
BSAVA British Small Animal Veterinary Association
SUVEPA La Sociedad Uruguaya de Veterinarios Especialistas en
Pequenos Animales
IVENTA International Veterinary Ear Nose and Throat Association
The Paw Project
Review of the Scientific Literature on Cat Declawing
Behavior Problems Caused by Declawing
• A report in the January 1, 2001 issue of the Journal of the American
Veterinary Medica/Association (JAVMA) by Yeon, et al., states that 33% of
cats suffer at least one behavioral problem after declaw or tendonectomy
surgery. The study showed that 17.9% had an increase in biting frequency
or intensity and that 15.4% would not use a litter box.
• Since 1966 there have been only six articles in the US veterinary literature
(including one by a Canadian veterinarian) that examined the behavioral
effects of declawing. The first (Bennett, et a/. ), looked at only 25 declawed
cats, but reported that declawed cats were 18.5% more likely than non-
declawed cat to bite and 15.6% more likely to avoid the litter box.
• Morgan and Houpt found that the 24 declawed cats in their Internet survey
had a 40% higher incidence of house soiling than non-declawed cats.
Borchelt and Voith, looking only at aggressive behavior in a retrospective
survey of pet owners, found declawed cats bit family members more often
than did non-declawed cats.
• In a retrospective phone survey, Patronek found that among 218 cats
relinquished to a shelter, 52.4% of declawed cats versus 29.1% of non-
clawed cats were reported to have inappropriate elimination.
• The National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy published "The Top
Ten Reasons for Pet Relinquishment to Shelters in the United States" in
2000. The report showed house soiling, followed by aogression, as the
most common behavioral reasons for pet relinquishment. Destructive
scratching did not make the list. It is noteworthy that only 3% of cat
owners, according to Scarlett, et a/. (JAVMA 2002) claim destruction of
furniture as the unwanted behavior that led them to relinquish their pets.
_~~ . ,; z
The Paw Project
Training is the appropriate remedy for behavior
problems, not surgery.
• Janet Scarlett, DVM, of Cornell University, in the article, "The Role of
Veterinary Practitioners in Reducing Dog and Cat Relinquishments and
Euthanasias (JAVMA, February 1, 200Z), states that client counseling is
"probably the most effective means by which veterinarians can influence
the number of dogs and cats surrendered to animal shelters today."
Veterinarians have an opportunity to intervene because people
relinquishing pets are veterinary clients. An estimated 50-70% of pets in
shelters had visited the veterinarian in the year preceding relinquishment.
Yet, Dr. Scarlett reports, "Only 25% of veterinarians routinely actively
identify and treat behavioral problems." She writes, "Less than a third felt
confident of their ability to treat common behavioral problems. Perhaps
even more disturbing, only 11.1% of veterinarians felt it was the
veterinarian's responsibility, rather than the client's, to initiate discussion
about behavioral problems."
• In a commentary of the Yeon article, Tufts University School of Veterinary
Medicine Professor Nicholas Dodman, DVM, MRCVS, DACVB writes, "It is
amazing that none of the studies to date on declawing has addressed the
right questions to the right persons and drawn the right conclusions. This
study is no exception. Owners are an unreliable source of information about
their pets, especially months or years after the fact....Almost one-half of
the cats in the study required post-operative opioids to control pain
following surgery, and the remainder would have probably benefited from
it. The owners reported that one-half to two-thirds of the cats in this study
showed signs of pain after surgery, likely only the tip of the iceberg....In
addition, though the authors were more interested in comparison of the two
techniques, it is notable that about 30% of all cats developed a behavior
problem after surgery, either house soiling or increased biting. Whatever
the owners may have assessed, this was not a good outcome. And, to top it
all, 42 of 57 cats (74%) had at least one medical complication following
surgery. In light of such findings, it is hard to see why veterinarians don't
spend more time and effort recommending alternatives to declawing than
these painful and sometimes debilitating procedures. Instead, we seem to
Pace ; o~ 8
The Paw Project
keep finding ways of justifying declawing as an essential component of
feline practice."
In the December 2003 issue of Cat Fancy magazine, Karen Overall, DVM,
PhD, DACVB, aboard-certified animal behaviorist, writes that scratching is a
complex behavior that "behavioral biologists have been almost wholly
uninterested in" and that "fewer and fewer people favor declawing." She
observes that "cats do not scratch to annoy us; they scratch to communicate
something and the cues are physical and olfactory. This is one aspect of
declawing that has never been investigated, and until we understand how
much these elective surgeries affect normal feline behavior, we could do best
to avoid them."
Surgical Complications of Declawing
• Jankowski, in JAVMA (August 1, 1998), reports that acute complications
"develop in up to a half of onychectomized cats. Long term complications
of the procedure (are) reported for about a fifth of onychectomized cats."
• Martinez, in Veterinary Medicine (June 1993), reports 11% lameness, 17%
wound breakdown, and 10% nail regrowth post-operatively in cats having
declaw surgery.
• In DVM Best Practices, August 2002, veterinarian Kip Lemke illustrates
typical levels of post-surgical pain using common surgical procedures.
Declawing is associated with "severe pain," compared to spaying
("moderate pain") and neutering ("mild pain").
• It appears that under-medicating cats after declawing is the norm. A survey
of over 1000 veterinarians by Wagner and Hellyer (JAVMA Dec. 1, 2002)
found that 30% administered no pain medication after declaw surgery.
• "Declawing is very painful -- there's no question about that..." says Dr.
Katherine Houpt, professor and director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at
Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine.
„~_-~~,~
The Paw Project
• Carroll points out that "the optimal duration of post-operative analgesic
treatment for cats is unknown." A cat's behavior may be misinterpreted
since not all cats show outward signs of pain -- crying, whining, or licking at
a paw, for example -- after surgery. "What they'll often do is curl up and go
to sleep in the back of the cage," says Dr. Karen Tobias, an associate
professor in small animal surgery at the University of Tennessee College of
Veterinary Medicine, who conducted a study on pain in cats after declawing
surgery. "Owners or veterinarians may think they're sleeping comfortably
and not in any pain."
Declawing is not used as a last resort option
• Over 25% of all owned cats in the United States and Canada are declawed.
• A survey of twenty Los Angeles area veterinary clinics, reported in the
February-March 2003 issue of The Pet Press, found that 75% agreed to
perform declawing without question and without any attempt to establish a
medical, behavioral, or any other indication to justify the procedure.
Declawing does not save the lives of cats
• Ina 1996 JAVMA article, Gary Patronek, VMD, PhD, using multivariate
statistical analysis, found that declawed cats were at an increased risk of
relinquishment to animal shelters and that among relinquished cats, 52.4%
of declawed cats were reported to exhibit litter box avoidance, compared to
29.1% of non-declawed cats.
. In a survey of owners of cats that had been declawed and their
veterinarians, reported by Dr. Gary Landsberg in Veterinary Forum,
September 1994, only 4% of the owners said they would have relinquished
their pet had it not been declawed. In contrast, the veterinarians in the
survey speculated that 50% of the owners would have relinquished their
pets.
=ge ? o S
sv Y"3"Sad ~r°
The Paw Project
Declawing does not save the lives of immuno-
compromised people
Richard Meyer, MD, is an Infectious Disease and Internist Medicine specialist who
trained at the prestigious Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Dr. Meyer, in 38 years of practice, has never recommended declawing the cats of his
patients, including those that are immunocompromised. He does not believe that
declawing the pets of persons with impaired immune systems reduces the overall risk to
their health.
"Certainly, cat scratches can pose serious health risks (for immunocompromised
persons)," says Dr. Meyer, "but cats bites are much, much worse. And declawed cats
are more likely to bite. That is not lore."
"Cat bites can be very dangerous ... (and. may require) long-term IV antibiotics and
surgery," he said. In contrast, Dr. Meyer says that cat scratches are far less likely to
require hospitalization or such intensive treatments.
The human diseases most associated with cats are Toxoplasmosis and Bartonellosis.
The risk of developing these or other opportunistic diseases from cat scratches is
exceedingly low. In his book, The Guide to Living with HIV Infection, John G. Bartlett,
MD, Professor of Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine, writes that common sense practices to avoid bites or scratches are
sufficient and specifically states, "You need not declaw the cat." Dr. Bartlett was the
president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America in 1999 and has served as a
consultant to the National Institutes of Health and as an editor for the New England
Journal of Medicine.
Another infectious diseases specialist, Dr. Ralph Hansen, of Pacific Oaks Medical
Group in Beverly Hills, says, "The risk of diseases being transmitted from cats comes
primarily from the litter box and teeth-in that order-with claws far down the list. There
is no rational medical reason for a physician to recommend declawing a cat." Dr.
Hansen's clinic currently treats over 2500 HIV positive individuals. Dr. Hansen said that
he has seen only one or two cases of full-blown Bartonellosis in the years since HIV
was first recognized. Bartonellosis, also know as cat scratch disease (CSD), Dr.
Hansen notes, is current thought to be transmitted by fleas. Infections caused by the
bacteria Pasturella, which are transmitted by bites, constitute a "much, much more
serious risk," says Dr. Hansen.
In a Winn Feline Foundation article, Susan Little, DVM, says, "It is likely that CSD can
also be contracted from environmental sources of the bacteria or from other animals.
She continues to say, "Onychectomy (declawing) is also not recommended, since
~~
The Paw Project
infection can occur without a cat scratch.... A common sense approach is the best way
to safeguard against CSD."
To avoid the risk of toxoplasmosis, J. P. Dubey, MVSc, PhD, a microbiologist at the
USDA Zoonotic Diseases Laboratory, recommends avoiding cat waste and notes that
"the possibility of {disease microorganisms) sticking to cat fur is minimal, as is the
possibility of transmission to humans via touching or handling a cat."
Michael G. Groves, DVM, MPH, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology at LSU School of
Veterinary Medicine, writes, "Veterinarians often are consulted by the public, and
occasionally by physicians and other veterinarians, for information regarding zoonoses,
diseases that are transmitted to humans from animals." Veterinarians and physicians,
"perhaps seeking 'zero risk,' advise patients to dispose of pets to prevent or alleviate a
zoonotic illness. HIV-positive people may be told they that should not have animals at
all. Although this advice may be well intended, it is often ill informed. Too often, what is
missing is some reasonable approximation of the true risk of disease transmission
balanced against the benefits of pet ownership." Asked if declawing is an effective
means of preventing human infection, Dr. Groves answers, "No, a significant number
(of illnesses) are associated with bites, with wounds not inflicted by cats, or with no
known site of inoculation. HIV-positive individuals and AIDS patients should be able to
have cats if they follow the prevention guidelines.... The benefits of a companion
animal for some people may outweigh any risks of pet ownership, provided steps are
taken to keep the risk at a minimum."
»~,,
The Paw Project
REFERENCES
1. AAHA adopts position statement on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc
1999;214:179.
2. American Pet Products Manufacturers Association Inc. 1999/2000 APPMA national pet owners
survey. Greenwich, Conn: American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, 2000.
3. Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. Position statement: surgical claw removal...an
extreme solution. Available at: http://www.avar.org/cat_declawing.htm. Accessed. Mar 26, 2001.
4. AVMA Policy statements and guidelines. Declawing of domestic cats. 2001 American Veterinary
Medical Association directory and resource manna/. Schaumburg, III: American Veterinary Medical
Association, 2001;74.
5. AVMA Policy statements and guidelines. Ear cropping and tail docking. In: 2001 American
Veterinary Medical Association directory and resource manual. Schaumburg, III: American
Veterinary Medical Association, 2001:74.
6. Bennett M, Houpt KA, Erb HN. Effects of declawing on feline behavior. Companion Anim Pract
1988;2:7-12.
7. Benson G7, Wheaton LG, Thurmon JC, et al. Postoperative catecholamine response to onychectomy
in isoflurane-anesthetized cats. Effect of analgesics. VetSurg 1991;20:222-225.
8. Borchelt PL, Voith VL. Aggressive behavior in cats. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1987;9:49-57.
9. Cambridge AJ, Tobias KM, Newberry RC et al. Subjective and objective measurements of
postoperative pain in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:685-690.
10. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. Animal welfare position statement on onychectomy of the
domestic feline. Available at http://www.cvma-acmv.org/doc9.html. Accessed Mar 26, 2001.
11. Carroll GL, Howe LB, Slater MR, et al. Evaluation of analgesia provided by postoperative
administration of butorphanol to cats undergoing onychectomy. JAm Vet Med Assoc 1998;213:246-
250.
12. Center for Information Management. US pet owners and demographic sourcebook. Schaumburg, III:
American Veterinary Medical Association, 1997.
13. Dohoo SE, Dohoo IR. Factors influencing the postoperative use of analgesics in dogs and cats by
Canadian veterinarians. Can VetJ 1996;37:552-556.
14. Dohoo SE, Dohoo IR. Postoperative use of analgesics in dogs and cats by Canadian veterinarians.
Can VetJ1996;37:546-551.
15. Feaga WP. Consider age, pain before onychectomy (left). Vet Med 1998;May/Jun:417
16. Franks 7N, Boothe HW, Taylor L, et al. Evaluation of transdermal fentanyl patches for analgesia in
cats undergoing onychectomy. JAm Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:1013-1020.
17. Hansen B, Hardie E. Prescription and use of analgesics in dogs and cats in a veterinary teaching
hospital: 258 cases (1983-1989). JAm Vet Med Assoc 1993;202:1485-1494.
18. Humane Society of the United States. Position statement on declawing cats. Available at:
http://www.hsus.org/programs/companion/pet care/declawing.html. Accessed Mar 26, 2001.
19. Jankowski AJ, Brown DC, Duval 7, et al. Comparison of effects of elective tenectomy or onychectomy
in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;213:370-373.
20. Landsberg GM. Cat owners' attitudes toward declawing. Anthrozoos 1991;4:192-197.
21. Landsberg GM. Declawing is controversial but still saves pets. A veterinarian survey. Vet Forum
1991;8:66-67.
22. Landsberg GM. Feline scratching and destruction and the effects of declawing. Vet C/in North Am
Small Anim Pract 1991;21:265-279.
pace ? ;,...
The Paw Project
23. Levy J, Lapham B, Hardie E, et ai. Evaluation of laser onychectomy in the cat. (Abstract) Proc 19th
Annu Meet Soc Laser Med 1999; 73.
24. Lin HC, Benson GJ, Thurmon 7C, et al. Influence of anesthetic regimens on the perioperative
catecholamine response associated with onychectomy in cats. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54:1721-1724.
25. Martinez SA, Hauptmann J, Walshaw R. Comparing two techniques for onychectomy in cats and two
adhesives for wound closure. Vet Med 1993; 88:516-525.
26. Max's House/START II. The facts about deciawing. Available at:
http://maxshouse.com/Truth%20About%20Declawing.htm. Accessed JuI 18, 2001.
27. Miller RM. The declawing controversy: stepping into the ring. Vet Med 1998;12:1043-1045.
28. Miller DD, Staats SR, Partlo C, Rada K. Factors associated with the decision to surrender a pet to an
animal shelter. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 209, 4, 738-742, 1996
29. Morgan M, Houpt KA. Feline behavior problems: the influence of declawing. Anthrozoos 1989;3:50-
53.
30. Patronek GJ, Beck AM, Glickman LT. Dynamics of the dog and cat populations in a community. J Am
Vet Med Assoc 1997; 210:637-642.
31. Patronek GJ, Glickman LT, Beck AM, et al. Risk factors for relinquishment of cats to an animal
shelter. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1996;209:582-588.
32. Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L.T., Beck, AM, McCabe, GP, and C. Ecker. Risk factors for relinquishment
of dogs to an animal shelter. 1996. J Am Vet Med. Assoc.; 209: 572-581.
33. Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., and M. Moyer. Population dynamics and risk of euthanasia for dogs
in an animal shelter. 1995. Anthrozoos 8(1): 31-43.
34. Pollari FL, Bonnett BN, Bamsey SC, et al. Postoperative complications of elective surgeries in dogs
and cats determined by examining electronic and paper medical records. J Am Vet Med Assoc
1996;208:1882-1886.
35. Pollari FL, Bonnett BN. Evaluation of postoperative complications following elective surgeries of dogs
and cats at private practices using computer records. Can VetJ 1996;37:672-678.
36. Ralston Purina. The state of the American pet. A study among pet owners. Available at:
http:j/www.purina.com/institute/survey.asp. Accessed Mar 26, 2001.
37. Salman MD, Hutchison ], Ruch-Gallie R, et ai. Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and
cats to 12 shelters. JApp/Anim We/fare Sci 2000;3:93-106.
38. Salman, M.D. Human and animal factors related to the relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12
selected animal shelters in the United States. JApp/Anim Welfare Sci 1998;v.1(3):207-226.
39. Scarlett, JM Reasons for relinquishment of companion animals in U.S. animal shelters: selected
health and personal issues. J Appi Anim Welfare Sci 1999; v.2(1):41-57
40. The Cat Fanciers' Association. Position statement on cat declawing. Available at:
http://www.cfainc.org/health/declawing.html. Accessed Mar 26, 2001.
41. Tobias KS. Feline onychectomy at a teaching institution: a retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet
Surg 1994; 23:274-280.
42. Wagner AE, Hellyer PW. Survey of anesthesia techniques and concerns in private veterinary
practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:1652-1657.
43. Winkler KP, Greenfield CL, Benson GJ. The effect of wound irrigation with bupivicaine on
postoperative analgesia of the feline onychectomy patient. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1997;33:346-
352.
44. Yeon SC, Flanders JA, Scarlett JM, et al. Attitudes of owners regarding tendonectomy and
onychectomy in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;218:43-47.
45. Zawistowski S, Morris J, Salman MD, et al. Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of
companion animals: new insights on old and new data. J Appl Anim Welfare Sci 1998;1:193-206.
Pagz 8 of 8
+rre'a i' 3 v?5'""J.i u