Santa Monica moves closer to cat declawing ban [Updated]

After more than 2 1/2 hours of public discussion, the Santa Monica City Council voted 6-1 Tuesday night in favor of an ordinance that would ban cat declawing in the city. The proposed measure will have a second reading before a final vote is taken.

The ordinance, which is modeled on a similar ban in West Hollywood, would prohibit procuring, performing or assisting in performing onychectomy (declawing) or flexor tendonectomy except when necessary to address a medical condition of the cat.

Any person who violated the ordinance would be guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined $500 or less or be imprisoned for six months, or both.

The council rejected proposed amendments by Councilman Richard Bloom that would have allowed exceptions to the ban in cases where veterinarians determined the procedures to be a last-resort option to prevent abandonment, relinquishment or euthanasia, and after pet owners had been advised of nonsurgical alternatives. His amendments also would have prohibited declawing to be offered as a promotional or discounted service.

Bloom voted against the declawing ban. He said that he did not support the unnecessary declawing of cats but that he opposed the measure because he believed it would lead to an increase in unnecessary cat deaths through relinquishment and euthanasia.

The second reading, at which no further testimony will be heard, probably will take place within a couple of weeks. A change in state law preempts California municipalities from banning cat declawing procedures after Dec. 31.

Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities are also considering cat declawing bans. Earlier this month, the Malibu City Council opted not to enact a ban but asked staff to draft an ordinance that would oppose declawing in the city.

[Updated at 2:13 p.m.: An earlier version of this post said the second reading will be held in closed session. The reading and roll call vote will take place in public session Nov. 10.]

-- Anne Colby

Photo: Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press

Comments

[Russell Wong]

Overreaching government intervention again! How about governing budget-crisis, homelessness, issues for which officials are elected to act on behalf of their constituents.

Had such a law been in effect when my wife and I took in two street cats (for which we cared for 16 and 18 years), we would have had to leave them on the street to suffer a worse fate that being declawed. In such a rural setting as Los Angeles, does anyone think we even considered letting them out on the street?!

I guess only municipalities like Santa Monica and Malibu can address such pressing legislative issues for their citizenry. Now back to international/national policy issues like nuclear weapons and healthcare for humans!

[pasadena jag]

Santa Monica - this has to be a joke city. I guess this city council would prefer the cats to die than be declawed and have a chance for adoption. Don't the political hacks who run these cities have anything else to do? Wow - do I loathe politicians. They are the lowest form, I'd say animal - but that would be an insult to animals!

[apple1]

"In such a rural setting as Los Angeles, does anyone think we even considered letting them out on the street?!"

You're joking, right? In the San Gabriel Valley lots of people, in all kinds of neighborhoods, let their un-spayed and un-neutered cats roam free whether or not they have claws.

[S.Tan]

tackling the hard issues, huh?

corporate, government abuse of power coupled by the loss of sensibilities in this counrtry is tearing us down...

not now, not soon..not anytime we could ever forseeably predict...but i expect a tipping point.
i see rebellion (maybe not widespread) in this country during my lifetime (age 27).

we can only stand so much

[getaclue]

hey russell wong, how would you feel if i cut off all your finger tips at the first knuckle? well, that's exactly what you did to your cats---

[Jenna]

Unbelievable! THIS is what our "elected officials" waste their time on??

[Mark]

Why, when someone takes up a cuase, do others believe that they can demean their effort by pointing to more significant causes (particularly, when they themselves are doing nothing to advance any cause)?

This is not the most significant issue of our time. This does not negate the fact that it is a difficult issue. You easily recognize your own righteousness. Why not allow that others are compassionate and decent and are doing their best to do what they honestly believe is right?

[Maria12345]

Ridiculous. Cats who are declawed live long, healthy lives...and so do their owners furniture and appendages. Anyone ever woken up to a non-declawed cat "kneading" your body? OUCH! Another mis-use of power and the government stepping in where they shouldn't.

I am SICK of govt involvement in every single area of our lives!! WTF??? Why do we allow this? S. Tan, you are right. I believe a real rebellion of US citizens is around the corner! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! GET OUT OF OUR DAILY LIVES, POLITICIANS!!! Focus on staying within your budget, reducing crime, traffic, etc. I know our founding fathers did not even dream our elected officials would wield so much power over our private lives.

[Elizabeth]

Thank you, Mark. Very well said.

[dlgillo]

What I find disturbing (aside from the fact that this is a pressing, public legislative issue being dealt with) is the often lackadaisical approach to care that many cat owners employ. Ease up on the hate mail— my point is that dog owners are legally responsible for keeping dogs on a leash when out of the yard and for any damage (including excrement) their dog does when out of the yard, as well as not abandoning them to the elements. How often are cats simply let out/ left out to roam around the neighborhoods, reproducing as they like, excreting as they like, and in all seriousness destroying WITH THEIR CLAWS as they like? How many local naturally occurring animals are killed or harmed by cats who are supposed to be pets (and fed by their owners)? How many dogs are injured within their own yards (that they are simply defending) by cats roaming around. Unless someone lives in a genuine rural environment or suburb, if they own a cat, it should be theirs, in their home (declawed or not). Come to think of it there should be legislation about letting pets out to roam the neighborhood.

[Greg]

People should not be owning cats in the first place if they agree with the passing of this bill. The whole point of domesticating a cat or any animal for that matter is to DOMESTICATE that animal. In the case of cats, that includes, ridding the cat of its claws since it presents a potential danger to the humans in the vicinity of the cat. Those who believe cats should be left with their claws have the right to believe so, but they should be opposed to domesticating them as well. They should realize the contradictory nature of their stance presents a problem to humans who after all must deal with the potential threat of these now un regulated species. By the way, I fully agree with every one who thinks issues like these are an abominable waste of tax payer dollars on officials with nothing better to do then sit around, discussing petty animal rights issues. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[stu]

Give me a break...Don't the politicians have more pressing issues to deal with.
Does this have an effect on society? Not really.

[Brooke]

If you don't have the time to trim a cats claws every week and train it to use scratching toys instead of your couch, don't get a cat.

[Michael Patterson]

What would this ordinance do to keep residents of the city from having this procedure performed in another city that doesn't have such a ban? I understand that it is worded in such a manner as to ban procuring the procedure, but I have to wonder how on earth the city is going to monitor such action. Hmm.... perhaps another layer of bureaucracy to keep tabs on every cat within city limits, eh? What a joke.

[Mr. Bill]

Pretty soon, this socialist city will require pet owners to keep terminal pets alive on life support systems like we do for people. Another example of Govt dictating to us how we live every second of our lives. They have nothing better to do than to worry about whether I decide to de-claw my indoor only cat? Oh my God. I have three cats, all have there claws. But it is MY decision as to whether or not I have them de-clawed, Not the Govt's. Unlike smoking, how does de-clawing my cat have any effect on anyone else, in any way? it is none of there business!! Why doesn't the city council deal with some real issues and stay of my home!! Sad Sad Sad.

[animalcrueltyiswrong]

It seems to me that rather than requiring a new measure, it would have been easier to add onychectomy to the current definition of animal cruelty.

Blocking what a small percentage of picky people require (declawing) really does nothing to contribute to animal overpopulation and euthanization.

You people should focus on doing your part to improve spay/neuter programs rather than whining when local government addresses an issue you consider wasteful.

[Russell Wong]

Like I said - versus a different fate on the street. "Fingers"?! - yes I've heard the argument though I never observed those opposable thumbs. Consider 18 years of pampered life (we were their servants!). Not to diminish others interest in this "cause" -- my point was that there is only so much time for government to address issues. The concern is when your government (at any level) makes choices as to how to use limited time and resources. All of the other social ills must already be solved in Santa Monica.

[Victoria]

What does this mean: A change in state law preempts California municipalities from banning cat declawing procedures after Dec. 31.

[skevh]

my cats have been declawed their entire 10+ year life and there couldn't be happier more content, sweet, wonderful cats in the world. de-clawing is only cruel if you are going to let your cats roam outside without claws to defend themsselves. But thanks Santa Monica for making this decision for the rest of us. This is the nanny-city striking yet again . Next they'll be outlawing serving meat in city restaurants because a sensitive minority believes vegetarianism is the only humane way for the rest of us to live.

[Mark]

Sure Russell...

Like local government has such power to really influence "nuclear weapons and healthcare for humans" so, much. Or this Times article was so unimportant that you needed to comment on it. Go read BBC or CNN.

Oh, we so applaud you saving of 2 cats lives at the expense of their claws. I heard your furniture is in purrrrfect condition.

[jsc]

What a complete of time at our expense as well as an encroachment into our private lives. To compare declawing to removing ones fingertips to the first knuckle (as stated by getaclue on 10-29-09) is completely ludicrous. This is a decision to be made by the pet owner, end of discussion.

[kerry]

for all those who think this is idiotic.....lets just lay your hands on the table and chop off your fingers at the first knuckle. pretty sure you won't like it.

[peter wolf]

Amazing. The state's economy, especially in So Cal, is in tatters and the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica spends its time on this. This on top of ensuring that it remains a nuclear free zone (phew!! that was close. Those ICBM's were moments away from installation here) and the bums are well fed so they dont leave town. With 'leadership' like this we will continue to sink relative to other states that spend their time on what's important.

[Juan R.]

If the cat is a citizen of S. Monica and you take it, AGAINST ITS WILL, to another jurisdiction where the procedure IS legal, will that then be a felony?

[Annie]

The issue has always been contraversial, however, it should not have been an issue that the city council wastes time on.

A more important subject is to have pets neutered/spayed to control and reduce the unwanted litter, which may further aid in the work efficiency of animal shelters and humane society of each city. Thus, the reduced cost for the city. More importantly, the city's environment would remain safe and friendly.

Onychectomy should be a legal procedure that pet owners consider themselves. Pet owners need to take the full responsibility of owning a pet, including its physical and psychological wellness. Cats have claws and they are meant to have claws. So scratching is part of their normal behaviour and they enjoy doing that. It is like when we have an itch so we scratch, or we stretch out our tensed muscles.

We as their owners should sufficiently provide objects for cats to scratch on. Pet stores provide great variety of scratching posts and cardboards that are great for cats. There are even nail caps available now where owners may apply them to their cats' nails.

However, onychectomy should be considered when the pet owner's health is at risk, such as HIV positive individuals, people with hemophilia (either hemophilia A or B), and individuals that are immunosuppresant. In these cases, it is better to have cats declawed but still be with their loving and responsible owners, rather than being given away, abandoned, or euthanized.

I believe it is unnecessary to establish an official ban on cat onychectomy. It is the duty of owners to be educated, do research and learn about the procedure then make the appropriate decision.

[peter wolf]

Mark asks;

"Why not allow that others are compassionate and decent and are doing their best to do what they honestly believe is right?"

Because places like Santa Monica spend ALL their time on BS like this. That is why the place has become a dump. They dont care that their city is decaying so long as they can make points amongst the most liberal voters in the country. Im old enough to remember Santa Monica when it was nice and not a graffiti ridden slum overrun by bums. Who caused this? The same people that have turned California into the nation's joke: The Democrats. Period.

[PETAdeclawedKitty]

Only an idiot would let their cat outside in LA. Unless they want the cat to get ran over (yes, the cat's claws would help him from get ran over!) Santa Monica City Council is obviously spending too much time at the medical marijuana clinic...they are stoned with such brilliant ordinances. I would support an ordinace to defang these crazy politicians and their PETA constituents.

[Mark]

I can't believe the wingnuts are trying to make the issue about a cat declawing ban about "government abuse of power". What's next, are they going to start calling Santa Monica "Nazi Germany" because they can't mutilate their pets? Jesus, what happened to reason in this country?

Surgically removing an important part of an animals anatomy for human convenience is wrong. If you'd give up your pet because you can't mutilate them, then you shouldn't have that pet in the first place. All you teabagger zealots can please DIAF.

[Santa Monica Resident]

If the City of Santa Monica wants to do something constructive about animal (particularly cat) welfare, they should stop wasting time and money on this issue, and start putting in an effort to curb the feral cat population.

I have personally paid for neutering and vaccinating several feral kittens that have moved into my neighborhood. The mother cat (of at least 12 kittens) has eluded capture even with the trap the city *rented* me - and when that failed and I asked for additional help from the city animal shelter, the response was that I need to pay for a professional animal trapper out of my own pocket. Right. And maybe after that I'll rent my own cement mixer and repave the sidewalk out front while I'm at it.

I'll be writing my councilperson a nastygram to this effect shortly.

[Russell Wong]

Better make sure that ObamaCare covers medical treatment of cat scratch fever. I've known a couple of people who have utilized medical services to treat it. As for levels of government, I don't know if Santa Monica has term limits, but perhaps we'll see more of the same at our productive state level of government when these individuals aspire to higher office. Can't you just wait for more of the same? Cities involving themselves in global matters? Let see ... S.F. on global warming ring a bell (as in inviting a U.N. center to town, etc.)?

[marejon]

do they really have nothing more important this this to deal with?? unbelievable.

[Anne Clarke]

I'm usually not a fan of the government interfering in our personal lives, but I am glad to hear of their involvement in this particular issue. I used to work at a cats-only veterinary hospital. Seeing cats declawed was hideous and it truly angered all of us who worked there. The MAJORITY of people who have their cats declawed have not tried alternative options, such as "Soft Paws" (plastic tips that cover each claw on the cat). I repeat, the majority of people did not seek cruelty-free alternatives. The cats were in significant pain for days (and in some cases, weeks) after their surgery. And, they were often very ill after being declawed. It truly is the equivalent of surgically removing one's fingernails. If any human had that done, it would eventually heal and the nerve endings would die. But of course, no human in their right mind would have this done. Onychectomies are truly an act of absolute ignorance and cruelty. I think they should be nationally, if not internationally, outlawed.

Cat owners - keeping your cats claws trimmed (you can use a regular "human" nail clipper for this) will reduce the amount of scratching your cat needs to do. Buy a scratching post and/or a corrugated cardboard cat scratch box and your cat will be just fine.

[K]

Why aren't there neutering and spaying laws and laws against cats roaming free and decimating bird populations and messing up people's gardens?

[Meh]

Folks coming out in defense of declawing? What's next, bear bating? What a pack of sick freaks.

[Mark]

"Santa Monica - this has to be a joke city. I guess this city council would prefer the cats to die than be declawed and have a chance for adoption."

Those are the only alternatives? Drama queen much?

[Anne Lawson]

I have two cats and have had as many as 6 when I lived in the country, however, I now live in the city. I have a 9-yr old Ragdoll cat which is unique and I have not had her declawed. She only scratches on a designated clawing post. I have a ferol cat that I saved from being fed to other animals and when she was 7 months old, I had to have her front claws removed or I would have had to get rid of her. She is strictly an inside cat with my Ragdoll. I could not stop her from clawing the furniture, the window sills, other areas. When she almost scratched my Ragdoll's eye out, I decided rather than have her put to sleep, I would have her declawed. She is happy in a loving home and both cats are happy with each other.

I don't think the law has any business ruling on what I do in my home unless I am doing it to hurt animals. In this instance I was not. I was protecting my pets and keeping them inside and giving them both a safe environment.

[Kay in Santa Monica]

Well, aren't we just the kindest, most cruelty-free folks around. Never mind that Santa Monica once tried to poison its squirrels. Hmmm, leaving claws on cats in a city with a squirrel "problem." Just how humane are we, Santa Monica?

[Mark]

" To compare declawing to removing ones fingertips to the first knuckle (as stated by getaclue on 10-29-09) is completely ludicrous. "

It's actually the exact same thing. How else would you get someone's nails to stop growing in?

[Kay in Santa Monica]

P.S. I do not mean to suggest that a domestic animal should be left defenseless against a wild animal. I just find it notable that the City Council finds one four-footed furry creature with a fluffy tail worthy of its protection, while another is treated as a mere pest. Some of us like squirrels and raccoons just as much as we like cats and dogs.

[Sue]

The ban is short-sighted as it could mean less adoptions. I think education is better than a law. I have heard of many people who would not have adopted if it meant a chance of shredded furniture.

I hope cities will reconsider these laws that could ultimately hurt more animals than it would save.

[wtf]

Santa Monica is the most liberal city next to San Francisco, but yet they love telling their citizens how to live. They need to stop wasting time in 2 1/2 hour debates on what to do with cats and do something about they're out of control homeless population. No wonder they charge so much for parking down there they have to make up the money wasted on bs laws.

[Katy]

How about making the feeding of feral cats illegal in Santa Monica (and everywhere else)? This is the single most ridiculous practice I've ever encountered, where people are allowed to place bowls of food in public areas and their own yards where the food does nothing but increase cat populations (because most feral feeders do NOT trap and spay/neuter), attract vermin and ants, and litter said public places and yards (usually with plastic bowls that blow everywhere). On top of which, contributing to the increase of feral populations is letting ostensibly "domestic" cats to roam outside, whether in rural or urban areas. These domestic animals, which by the way are non-native to North America, kill 93 million songbirds in the US alone EVERY YEAR. I love cats but they need to be spayed/neutered, they need to stay inside their owners' homes where they're kept safe and where they can't do damage to property and other wildlife.

[Scott]

I do see declawing as cruel, and have known a few cats psychologically damaged from the experience. I think fines and punishment for animal cruelty should be severe. I also wonder why the "driving while on cell phone" law penalty is so much less so than this one. Driving while on the phone can get people killed.

[grey line]

After having two cats for five years, we had a child who is immune compromised and allergic to cat scratches. After our toddler had been ill twice from cat scratches (high fevers included), her Pediatrician told us the cats had to go. We opted for declawing. It's a huge commitment. Strictly housebound cats are a constant cleaning job. But, they never get sick. Our male cat lived to 24 years, and the female to 22. They were very old. But, didn't experience health problems until their last two years (cancer). Yes, they had to learn new tricks about jumping and landing. But, it didn't take them long. They never injured themselves, not once. Our cats were very loving, happy, true family members who required a lot more attention than outdoor cats. We were all "in tune" with each other, understood each others' moods, and were there for each other. It was unlike any relationship we've ever known with outdoor cats. Much closer! I realize that we stripped them of their independence, as well as their claws, and it broke my heart. But, it was a better alternative than getting rid of them. Our cats loved their lives, and our family, as much as we loved them. As long as cat owners can accept the huge responsibility of 20+ years of life-long caring for housebound cats, they should not be denied the ability to declaw. Our family is so much better for having been allowed to share our lives with them. We'd prefer to see more emphasis on mandatory spaying and neutering. Most people who are willing to pay the hundreds of dollars for the declawing procedure are committed to keeping their cats.

[Cat Advocate]

Have any of you complaining about this banning of declawing cats in Santa Monica ask your cat if it wants its toes cut off? Or if it wants days, weeks, months or a lifetime of possible foot pain from surgery infections? Doesn't the cat deserve a say in this? Yes, and it would say "Respect Me, don't mutilate me!"

[James L.]

Only in Santa Monica do they devote time and money to such a ridiculous cause. What happened, were all of the trees saved? Meow.

[Annie]

To grey line | October 30, 2009 at 07:35 PM,

I believe you and I are the same page. In this case, onychectomy has improved your, your family's, and both cats lives.

It is the owners's responsibility to commit and make things work for everyone. You have done such outstanding job that your cats lived so long. Well done!

Good luck to you!

[MaryAnne]

The California Veterinary Medical Association has paid over $1,000,000 to lobbyists to lobby FOR declawing cats. You see the posts above that state "doesn't the city have anything better to do!" "my cats got declawed and LOVE it!" Those were written by the paid lobbyists. Every time this issue comes up the same exact posts are made, by lobbyists. It's almost word for word what they submitted in their documents to the City. Don't be fooled.

If anyone thinks declawing cats is okay, go get a cigar cutter and lop off the last digits of your toes and fingers. Don't bother to reattach the tendon or ligament because vets don't. You will never be able to control your toes or fingers again. You will never be able to grab anything or push off your feet. You'll end up walking on your heel because you can't control your toes. Does that sound like fun? Basic cat and owner training is the solution, not amputation.