Cat Declawing Ban Is Vetoed by City Council

• Malibu Could Become Declaw Center

BY BILL KOENEKER

For the second time at the request of Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, the majority of the Malibu City Council considered a cat declawing ban, but once again turned down preparing an ordinance outlawing the practice known as onychectomy.

The proponents of the ban were led by a wildlife veterinarian, Jennifer Conrad, a lifetime local, who said she had been urging the ban on declawing of cats. Several cities adopted bans since Malibu considered the issue.

Councilmember Sharon Barovsky continued to insist the matter was an either or situation and that calling for the ban was like a death sentence. She said she was totally against the practice, but felt the ban would preclude other options leading to a bad alternative for cats.

Barovsky, who is a cat owner explained her cat of many years just recently died. She indicated she had a new kitten and noted with the information she had in hand could not be persuaded to change her mind about the issue.

Councilmember John Sibert, who said he is also a cat owner and had a declawed cat adopted in that condition, described the ban as symbolic, because pet owners could travel just across the hill for the practice.

However, it may turn out that because so many neighboring communities are banning the practice, Malibu may be where the operations are performed most. Opponents say that may be one more thing the community is castigated for by its critics in the outside world who plan to dub Malibu the “cat crippling capital of Southern California.”

Sibert added, “I don’t think it is a good idea for declawing, but I have a declawed cat we adopted and could put it in anybody’s lap,” he said, adding any measure the city passed would be purely symbolic without a rationale.

Conley Ulich said she did not own a cat, because she is allergic to them, but thought the practice should be abolished because it is “cruel and unusual punishment.”

According to Conley Ulich West Hollywood was one of the first cities to enact a ban in 2003. Just since the council first considered it, Santa Monica voted to ban the practice, Beverly Hills did so also, Los Angeles passed it and Berkeley also voted to enact the measure.

In 2003, the council considered such a ban and after a packed chamber including veterinarians urging the council to either reject or enact the ban, the council backed down from approving an ordinance prohibiting the practice.

The proposal is similar to a law adopted by the city of West Hollywood, which was challenged in court. That city’s ban was challenged by the California Veterinary Medical Association, but was upheld by the state appellate court in 2007.

The argument that swayed a majority of the vote last time was that not many other cities had enacted such a law and that Malibu’s ban would be ineffective.