Expressing opposition to the use of onychectomy, also known as declawing, for elective surgery in cats.
Summary
H. Res. 985 expresses the House of Representatives' opposition to elective declawing (onychectomy) and tendonectomy procedures on cats. The resolution defines declawing broadly to include any procedure that removes or disables a cat's claws, except for medically necessary procedures or nail trimming. It cites the procedures as inhumane and unnecessary, referencing potential adverse health and behavioral effects on cats.
Expected Effects
If passed, the resolution would encourage veterinary professionals to discourage elective declawing. It also urges state legislatures to consider banning these procedures based on animal welfare and public health concerns. The resolution also affirms the commitment of the United States to advancing animal protection and animal welfare.
Potential Benefits
- Promotes animal welfare by discouraging inhumane procedures.
- May reduce public health risks associated with increased biting from declawed cats.
- Encourages states to align with international standards on animal welfare.
- Supports the well-being of cats, which can positively impact the psychological health of their owners.
- Reinforces the importance of responsible pet ownership and humane treatment of animals.
Potential Disadvantages
- The resolution has no direct legal effect as it is non-binding, and states are not obligated to act.
- May face opposition from some veterinarians or cat owners who believe declawing is sometimes necessary.
- Could lead to increased costs for cat owners if alternative solutions for scratching behavior are more expensive.
- May not fully address the underlying issues that lead to cats being surrendered to shelters.
- The resolution does not provide funding or resources to support the implementation of alternative solutions.
Constitutional Alignment
The resolution aligns with the general welfare clause of the Constitution's preamble, as it aims to improve animal welfare and potentially reduce public health risks. However, the Constitution does not explicitly address animal welfare, leaving this matter primarily to state and local governments. The resolution does not infringe upon any specific constitutional rights or limitations.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).