Culver City, Burbank to vote on animal declawing bans; Los Angeles' ban already in effect

Culver City officials will decide this evening whether to join six other California cities that have banned declawing within their city limits. Burbank officials will make a decision on a proposed animal declawing ban Dec. 8.

Last week, in a first reading of its proposed ordinance to ban onychectomy and flexor tendonectomy except for therapeutic reasons, the Culver City Council voted 5-0 in favor of a ban. If the council passes the ordinance at its meeting tonight, the ban would go into effect Dec. 30.

Last week's Culver City vote came after more than an hour of testimony on both sides of the issue. Declawed cats made an appearance as well, both live and on video.

A veterinarian who opposes a city ban brought in two apparently healthy declawed cats to show council members, at the request of Culver City Councilman Micheal O'Leary, who said he'd never seen a declawed cat. Members of the Santa Monica-based Paw Project, which advocates declawing bans, showed a video clip of cats with reportedly less positive outcomes.

The Burbank City Council, at its meeting last week, voted to move forward in considering an urgency ordinance to ban declawing. If the council passes it at its meeting next Tuesday, the measure would not be subject to the usual 30-day waiting period before going into effect.

Earlier this month, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Berkeley and San Francisco passed ordinances banning declawing except for therapeutic purposes.

Los Angeles' ordinance went into effect Nov. 20, making animal declawing a misdemeanor. A copy of the ordinance, No. 180986, is available on the Los Angeles city website.

The recent city measures are modeled on an ordinance instituted by West Hollywood in 2003. That law was challenged in court by the California Medical Veterinary Assn. but was upheld.

The CVMA was a sponsor of Senate Bill 762, signed into law July 2, which starting Jan. 1 gives the state authority over medical scope-of-practice issues and prevents cities and counties from passing ordinances banning medical procedures.

Municipalities have taken note of the deadline, and several have considered bans over the last couple of months while they still can take action.

"Personally, I think having a city-by-city regulatory framework is a bad thing," Burbank City Councilman Dave Golonski said at last Tuesday's meeting. "And, frankly, I'm disappointed in Sacramento because in some ways Sacramento is forcing us to consider emergency ordinances and things. This is not the way we should be doing business. ...  But I realize that if we choose not to exercise that, then we are foreclosed forever from doing that by the actions of the Legislature."

At last week's Culver City Council meeting, Councilman D. Scott Malsin said that even though he thought the proposed ban might be too much of a blanket prohibition, he supported it because of the Dec. 31 state-imposed deadline. "If we need to revisit it, we can revisit it. If we wanted to revoke it entirely, we could revoke it. However, once Dec. 31 passes we no longer have the authority to support any restrictions."

Culver City Mayor Andrew Weissman said, "We don't want to be the only place on the Westside that permits the practice of cat declawing. I would hate to see the 'Heart of Screenland' motto replaced with 'Culver City, the place you come to have your cats declawed because nobody else around will let you do it.'"

RELATED:
Santa Monica, San Francisco ban cat declawing
California cities act to ban cat declawing
L.A., Beverly Hills take big steps toward enacting bans on cat declawing
L.A. City Council committee asks for ordinance banning cat declawing
Several California cities to look at cat declawing bans

-- Anne Colby

Photo: Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Jessica]

I personally would not declaw my cats, but I see both sides of the argument. If a family has a cat that tears the nice furniture and scratches their kids, is it better for them to declaw the cat and keep it, or is better to not declaw and turn it in to the shelter because the cat is too destructive? I wish that neither of these was an option, but that's unrealistic.

You can try to clip or cover the nails (if the cat lets you) and you can try deterrent sprays, but if that cat wants to scratch, it will scratch. I hope that these people who advocate the ban are ready to volunteer and foster these little guys when the shelters are overcrowded with scratchy cats.

[Dick]

The state is about bankrupt and a few cities worry about declawing cats.

[melanie]

Awesome! I'm glad this is being considered. This is a horrific act on cats and so outdated. Who really does this? Let me clarify, I know people do it, I work in a cat rescue shelter as a volunteer and see these kitties with no claws. It makes me wonder how numb to other creatures' plight can you be to have this procedure done? Why bother getting a pet just to make it suffer needlessly?

I hope more cities decide on the ban as well.

As for the comment regarding cats soon filling up shelters (even more so than now), well, those that toss their pets aside so readily will do so for whatever reason the pet 'inconveniences' them. Note my comment above about declawed cats showing up where I volunteer...

Lastly, when/if the cat gets outside...it has no way to protect itself.

Let's make this ban happen!

[John McGinnis]

Don't they have anything better to talk about at City Hall than cats? These people are clowns. Why do we keep electing fools!?