Essay

Declawing Cats Provokes a Billion-Dollar

Debate
Surgically removing a cat’s claws has long been a profitable business for veterinarians.
Now animal advocates are hoping to ban what they call a ‘cruel, torturous procedure.’

By Peter Funt
Jun 13, 2024 10:48 a.m. ET

A simple invention by a Michigan entrepreneur in 1947 led to millions of Americans bringing

pet cats into their homes. The man was Ed Lowe and his product was Kitty Litter.

Five years later, a Chicago veterinarian named A.G. Misener announced another innovation,
designed to address an unintended consequence of Lowe’s creation. Misener wrote in the Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association that he had developed a procedure to remove
feline claws, explaining later that it helped protect “the fine needlepoint cover of a chair or rug or
a new davenport.”

Today, Americans have an estimated 100 million cats and, according to a Harris Poll conducted
in October for the American Humane Society, roughly 22% of them have been declawed. This
surgery, to remove the third phalanx, or toe bone, from each digit of a cat’s foot—known as an
onychectomy—is provoking increasingly tense debate among cat owners, politicians and
veterinarians.

Dr. Earl Mummert, who has done declaws for much of the last half-century in Groton, Conn.,
says, “My own cats were always declawed. And the main reason is that we have a lot of nice
furniture and cats, invariably, no matter how many scratching posts you like to give them, still
prefer the arms of your chairs.”

The Animal Care Health Center in Madison, Ala., advises on its website that “Declawing should
not be a first line of defense against scratching behavior in cats.” Yet, the site says, “If your cat’s
damage is making you frustrated…visit us today for cat declawing services.” One of the vets, Dr.
Olivia Mann, says she “doesn’t enjoy” doing such surgeries. However, she explains, “One of my
clients was elderly and immunocompromised, and cats have a lot of bacteria on their claws. In
such situations, where either this elderly woman gets to keep her cat who is declawed or the cat
has to be re-homed or euthanized, I’ll do the declaw.”
The country’s largest provider of veterinary services, Mars, Inc., with over 2,200 animal hospital
locations across the U.S., has opted out of declawing. The Mars position paper states: “Feline
scratching and nail sharpening are normal behaviors and the removal of nails has been shown to
lead to chronic pain and, in some cases, to cause long-term behavioral issues.”

More than a dozen states have sought to ban the practice but only two, New York and Maryland,
have succeeded, while a third, Virginia, recently enacted a version of the law that critics say
contains many loopholes. Globally, nearly two dozen countries—including England, Australia,
and Japan—have prohibited or severely restricted veterinarians from performing onychectomies.

The American Veterinary Medical Association, which long opposed efforts to outlaw declawing,
has modified its stance, saying it now “discourages” the procedure and “encourages the use of
alternatives.” Yet AVMA representatives and surrogates continue to show up in state houses and
local council rooms to lobby against declawing legislation.

Typical is what happened in Illinois, where Democrat Barbara Hernandez, who adopted a cat
named Frida at a local shelter two years ago, introduced legislation to stop declawing. “It’s an
unnecessary procedure,” she says, “that individuals put their cats through because they don’t
want them to damage their furniture.”

Her bill was supported by eight groups, including the Illinois Humane Society and People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, and was opposed by just one organization, the Illinois branch of
the AVMA, which supplied what it called a written “template” for its members. “I’m concerned
that this bill will compromise my ability to uphold my medical oath,” it says, “and will
needlessly put cats’ lives at risk.”

Such “risk,” according to the document, could occur if an ill or elderly person feared being
scratched and opted to euthanize their cat. “My argument,” counters Hernandez, “is that maybe
the individual should not have a cat and maybe find a safer animal.” Her bill was approved in the
House but has been stalled for a year in the Senate.

In New Hampshire, Republican Mike Bordes, who describes himself as “a champion for
common sense values,” authored a bill that mandates, “No person shall remove the claws of a cat
for cosmetic or aesthetic reasons or for reasons of convenience in keeping or handling the cat.”
“I have cats myself,” he says. “The practice of declawing cats is a cruel, torturous procedure.”
His bill passed in the House last year but died in the Senate.

Rarely discussed in public debates is the economic factor. The makers of a new documentary,
“American Cats: The Good, the Bad and the Cuddly,” estimate that onychectomies bring in $1
billion annually for U.S. veterinarians. The film was funded by the nonprofit Paw Project, whose
founder, Dr. Jennifer Conrad, has spent several decades working to halt declaw surgery,
beginning with the nation’s first ban in West Hollywood in 2003.

“I honestly thought veterinarians would be happy not to have to declaw,” she recalls, “but these
people were pissed. Then it came to me: I don’t work for veterinarians; I work for cats, and no
cats are mad at me for banning declawing. It was then and there that I decided to make this my
life’s work.”

Part of that effort is to educate people about the effects of declawing that go beyond pain and
suffering for the animal. “For instance,” she explains, “declawed cats bite more and use the litter
box less. These behaviors arise because they have no claws to defend themselves, so they have to
resort to biting, and because it hurts their amputated toe stubs to dig in the sand, so they stop
using the litter box.”

For many years, Conrad’s most vocal opponent was now-retired vet Dr. Peter Weinstein, who ran
the large Southern California chapter of the AVMA. In a 2009 newsletter he described the
declaw campaign organized by Conrad and her supporters as a “terrorist attack.” I asked him if
his position has changed. “I feel that declawing should be reserved for very limited situations,”
he said. “What we have seen over time is that veterinarians have, in many cases, policed
themselves regarding the performance of declawing procedures. So my mantra is ‘Educate, don’t
legislate.’”

Additionally vexing when it comes to declawing is the matter of animal rights—including the
basic question of whether they actually have any. “Pets are family members in my eyes,”
Weinstein insists. “The ultimate goal is to keep the pet with the family.”

Would you advocate cutting off the toes of a family member?

“It’s a great question. I think that’s when you sit down and have a discussion with the pet owner
about what they can do to make sure they decrease the risk of being injured by the pet. Maybe
it’s wearing long sleeves.”

There are other practical remedies, most notably the application of plastic “nail caps” by a vet or
groomer. Costing an average of $25 for all four paws, the coverings last about six weeks before a
new set is needed. Less expensive versions are marketed for in-home application and, according
to the National Cat Groomers Initiative, they “do not interfere with the extension and retraction
of the nails, allowing normal behavior while still preventing damage from scratching.”

Despite efforts to curb the practice, the number of onychectomies performed annually in the U.S.
has remained about the same. “Now that the ethical veterinarians are giving it up,” Conrad
observes, “other veterinarians are seeing it as a business opportunity and they’re getting more
business for doing something that’s so egregious.” Todd Bieber, who directed “American Cats,”
concludes, “After two years of research I’m left with the realization that declawing is barbaric,
and no economic or political considerations make it any less so.”

In New Hampshire, Rep. Bordes intends to take another crack at legislation to ban declawing.
Those in the state senate who vote on the measure will have to do so while gazing at a towering
painting by Abbott Thayer that adorns their chamber. It depicts a young Daniel Webster on his
knees, studying a copy of the newly ratified Constitution, accompanied by his butterscotch
colored cat.

Peter Funt is a journalist and TV host and the author, most recently, of “Playing POTUS: The
Power of America’s ‘Acting Presidents.’”