###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

A proposal to ban veterinarians from surgically removing claws from cats seems like it would be an easy sell for California lawmakers, several of whom lovingly describe their pets in their official biography pages.

After all, several U.S. cities, states and more than 30 countries already have banned vets from performing declawing, arguing that it’s cruel and unnecessary. The American Veterinary Medical Association has for at least five years discouraged vets from performing the surgeries.

But five different efforts since 2018 to ban declawing in California have died due to resistance from the influential California Veterinary Medical Association, which has spent at least $1 million on lobbying during that time. It’s a demonstration of the power of money and spending in Sacramento, when even seemingly noncontroversial proposals are cast aside.

Assemblymember Alex Lee, a Democrat representing the Milpitas area, hopes this year will be different.

Lee described the procedure last week in graphic terms as he urged his colleagues on the Assembly Business and Professions Committee to advance his Assembly Bill 867, which would prohibit the surgery except in rare cases where removing claws is medically necessary, such as an infection.

“Cat declawing is a serious surgery, with a cat’s final toe joint being removed, or its tendons being severed,” said Lee, who has two cats, Udon and Soba. “I believe that when it is performed for any reason other than the health of the cat, then I believe it is cruel and inhumane.”

Lee brought a poster showing what a declawing on a cat’s paw would be like on a human hand. Dotted lines showed where fingers would be sliced off at the joint below the nail.

Jennifer Conrad, a veterinarian representing the Paw Project, brought a prop of her own: A cigar cutter.

“It’s the equivalent of taking this cigar cutter and cutting off every one of my last phalanxes on my hand,” she told the committee.

Christina DiCaro, a lobbyist for the California Veterinary Medical Association, said many of the association’s members have voluntarily stopped declawing.

“They note that they have not done a declaw procedure in many, many years,” she told the committee. “And if they did, it was because their human client owner was on a blood thinner and could not risk being scratched by their cat.”

But she said her group primarily opposes the bill because vets don’t want the Legislature to dictate what practices they can use. Lee’s bill would also require vets who perform the surgery for medically necessary reasons to report it to California’s veterinary licensing board.

“We suspect that the only reason this language is in the bill is so that animal activists can obtain this information, the names of veterinarians through a public records request, and target our hard-working professionals,” DiCaro told the committee.

The association has donated at least $62,650 to the members of the committee since 2015, according to the Digital Democracy database. In total, the association has donated $677,500 to members of the Legislature since 2015.

Her arguments — and the association’s campaign cash — didn’t persuade the Democrats on the committee. All 12 in attendance voted for the bill.

Los Angeles Democratic Assemblymember Jessica Caloza told the committee the “thought of declawing my cat kind of makes my stomach churn.”

Brea Republican Assemblymember Phillip Chen joined Democrats in backing the measure, but the other four Republicans on the committee didn’t vote, which counts the same as voting “no.” As CalMatters has reported, the widespread practice of dodging tough votes allows legislators to avoid accountability. None of the Republicans spoke at the hearing.

Meanwhile the committee’s Democratic chair, Marc Berman representing Palo Alto, used the measure as an excuse to make groan-inducing cat puns.

“This bill is meow-velous,” he said.

Previous attempts have failed

Despite having early Democratic support, the bill now faces an uncertain future if recent history is any guide. A similar proposal last year didn’t get a committee hearing in the Assembly; a 2022 measure passed the Assembly but didn’t get taken up by the Senate. Three previous attempts since 2018 died similarly, only once having a committee formally voting to kill it.

That’s not unusual. As CalMatters has reported, it’s extremely rare for lawmakers to kill legislation via voting “no” in public hearings. During the 2023-2024 session, only 25 of 2,403 unsuccessful bills died due to a majority of lawmakers formally voting “no” to kill them. Instead, lawmakers usually choose not to take up the measures at subsequent hearings.

DiCaro, the veterinary association’s lobbyist, didn’t return a message from CalMatters seeking to discuss how the association was able to persuade lawmakers to kill previous proposals behind the scenes.

Lee, the author of this year’s proposal, was a staffer for Calabasas Democratic state Sen. Henry Stern, who authored two of the earlier failed bills. Lee also co-authored previous legislation after becoming a lawmaker in 2020.

Lee told CalMatters in an interview that he thinks this year’s legislation has better odds. In the past the vet lobby has tended to argue in favor of the merits of the procedure, but now the arguments focus on resistance to regulating vets, he said.“They’re not even attacking the core declawing issue anymore,” he said. “I really do think it’s like a big culture change and mindset change, and hopefully we’ll get all the way to the finish line this time.”

###

CalMatters data reporter Jeremia Kimelman contributed to this story.