Should California prohibit veterinarians from declaring cats?

The proposal to ban veterinarians from surgical nail removal from cats seems to be an easy sale for California legislators, several of whom love with love describing their pets on their official biography pages.

In the end, several cities, states and more than 30 countries have already banned veterinarians from declaring, claiming it is cruel and unnecessary. The American Veterinary Medical Association has at least five years discouraged veterinarians from performing operationsS

But five different efforts from 2018 to ban the declaration in California died due to resistance from the influential California Association for Veterinary Medical Medical Medical Relationship, which during that time spent at least $ 1 million on lobbying. This is a demonstration of the power of money and costs in Sacramento, when even at first glance uncontrolled proposals are rejected aside.

Assembly Alex LeeDemocrat, representing the Milpasis area, hopes to be different this year.

Lee described the procedure last week in a graphic terms while calling on his colleagues in the Business and Occupation Committee to Assembly to progress his Assembly Bill 867Which would ban the surgery, except in rare cases where nail removal is necessary as an infection.

“Declaring cats is a serious surgery, with the cat’s final joint removed or its tendons cut off,” ” Lee saidWho has two cats, Udon and Soba. “I believe that when it is performed for some reason other than cat’s health, then I believe it is cruel and inhuman.”

Lee brought a poster to show what would look like a cat’s paw on a human hand. The dotted lines showed where the fingers would be cut to the joint under the nail.

Jennifer Conrad, a veterinarian representing PAW projectbring your own support: cigar cutter.

“This is the equivalent of taking this cigar cutter and cutting out any of my last phalans on my hand,” She said The Committee.

Christina Dikaro, a lobbyist for California Veterinary Medical AssociationHe said that many members of the association voluntarily stopped declaring.

“They note that they have not done a declaring procedure for many, many years,” she told the committeeS “And if they did it, it was because their human customer owner was a smaller blood and couldn’t risk being scratched by his cat.”

But she said that her group is opposed to the bill because veterinarians do not want the legislature to dictate what practices they can use. Lee’s bill will also require veterinarians who perform the operation for medically necessary reasons to report it to the Veterinary Council for the licensing of California.

“We suspect that the only reason this language is in the bill is that animal activists can obtain this information, the names of veterinarians by requesting public records and focus on our hardworking professionals,” Dikaro Dikaro Dikaro Dikaro told the committeeS

The Association has donated at least $ 62,650 to committee members since 2015, According to the digital democracy databaseS A total of the association has donated $ 677,500 to members of the Legislative Power since 2015.

Her arguments – and the association’s campaign – did not convince the Democrats in the Commission. All 12 present voted for the bill.

Los Angeles Democratic Dispute Jessica Kalosa told the committee “The thought of declaring my cat makes my stomach get rid of.”

Republican Assembly member of Brea Philip Chen He joined the Democrats to support the measure, but the other four Republicans in the Commission did not vote, which reported the same as the vote “No”. As CalMatters reported, The wide practice of avoiding hard voices Allows legislators to avoid accountability. None of the Republicans talk about the hearing.

Meanwhile, the democratic chairman of the committee, Mark Berman Presenting Palo Alto, he uses the measure as an excuse to make cat puns that cause a wall.

“This bill is soft,” he saidS

Previous attempts failed

Although there is an early democratic support, the bill is now facing an uncertain future if the recent history is some guide. Last year, such a proposal did not receive a hearing of a committee in the Assembly; A measure of 2022 adopted the assembly, but did not take the Senate. Three previous 2018 attempts died in a similar way, only once there was a committee to officially vote to kill her.

This is not uncommon. As CalMatters reportedIt is extremely rare for legislators to kill legislation by voting “no” in public hearing. During the session in 2023-2024, only 25 of the 2.403 unsuccessful bills were killed due to the majority of the legislators who officially voted no to kill them. Instead, legislators usually choose not to take the measures in subsequent hearing.

Dikaro, the lobbyist of the Veterinary Association, did not return a message from Calmatters who seek to discuss how the association was able to persuade lawmakers to kill previous suggestions behind the scenes.

Lee, author of this year’s proposal, was an employee of the Democratic State Kalabasas a democratic country. Henry Stern, who are the author of two of the more failed accounts. Lee also co -authored the previous legislation after becoming a Member of Parliament in 2020.

Lee told CalMatters in an interview that he believed this year the legislation had better chance. In the past, the lobby of veterinarians tends to argue in favor of the merits of the procedure, but now the arguments are focusing on the resistance to the regulation of veterinarians, he said.

“They don’t even attack the main problem he declares,” he said. “I really think it’s like a big change in culture and a change of thinking, and we hope that this time we will reach the final.”

CalMatters data reporter Jeremiah Kimmelman has contributed to this story.