Pet Protection Proposal

New Proposals and Ideas
1

:light_bulb: 1. TLDR – Summary of Proposed Solutions

:white_check_mark: Prohibit non-medical declawing, tail docking, ear cropping, and devocalization in companion animals
:white_check_mark: Permit surgical procedures only when medically necessary, with written justification by a licensed veterinarian
:white_check_mark: Require digital reporting and public transparency for all exempt procedures
:white_check_mark: Escalate penalties for repeated violations and allow license review by state veterinary boards
:white_check_mark: Establish authority to review and expand protections as veterinary science evolves

:light_bulb: 2. Purpose

The Pet Protection Proposal ensures that companion animals in our state are not subjected to unnecessary surgical alterations performed for aesthetics, behavior control, or tradition. These procedures—declawing, tail docking, ear cropping, and devocalization—have been widely discredited by veterinary professionals and are increasingly seen as incompatible with modern standards of animal care.

This measure limits such procedures to cases where they are medically necessary for the health and well-being of the animal, as documented by a licensed veterinarian. It provides clear legal standards, modernizes oversight, and affirms a basic principle: surgery should serve animal health, not human convenience.

:books: 3. Background

Non-therapeutic procedures such as onychectomy (declawing), tail docking, ear cropping, and vocal cord removal have been practiced for decades in pet care, often justified by owner preference or outdated breed standards. However, research now confirms long-term health and behavioral consequences for animals subjected to these surgeries.

Major veterinary organizations—including the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA)—oppose these procedures unless there is a specific medical reason. Still, many U.S. states permit them with few restrictions. This proposal aligns state law with current scientific understanding and ethical practice, ensuring surgical interventions are reserved for legitimate veterinary care.

:white_check_mark: 4. Proposed Solutions

:white_check_mark: Solution 1: Prohibit Non-Medical Declawing

  • Bans all forms of feline onychectomy unless required to treat infection, injury, or disease

  • Defines declawing as amputation of any portion of the distal phalanx

  • Requires veterinary documentation and submission to the state reporting portal

:white_check_mark: Solution 2: Ban Tail Docking and Ear Cropping

  • Prohibits tail and ear alterations performed for appearance, breed conformity, or owner preference

  • Exceptions allowed only for conditions verified by veterinary diagnosis

  • Clinics must retain documentation for five years

:white_check_mark: Solution 3: Prohibit Vocal Cord Removal (Devocalization)

  • Bans surgical devocalization unless medically required to resolve a diagnosed health condition

  • Must be performed under full anesthesia and reported within 14 days via state system

:white_check_mark: Solution 4: Ban Cosmetic Piercing, Tattooing, and Branding

  • Prohibits permanent body modifications not medically necessary or related to identification

  • Microchipping for legal ID purposes remains permitted

:white_check_mark: Solution 5: Medical Justification Standards

  • A medically necessary procedure must be performed only to treat or prevent a health condition in the animal itself

  • Behavioral concerns or property-related damage are not valid reasons for surgical alteration

:white_check_mark: Solution 6: Oversight, Enforcement, and Public Reporting

  • Establish a secure digital portal for reporting and monitoring exception-based procedures

  • Civil penalties begin at $1,000 per violation and escalate to $5,000 for repeat or institutional offenses

  • Three or more violations within five years may trigger license review and referral under existing cruelty statutes

  • Annual public report required from the State Animal Health Board

:white_check_mark: Solution 7: Future Review Authority

  • State Animal Health Board must review and consider expansion of covered procedures every five years based on emerging veterinary evidence

:magnifying_glass_tilted_left: 5. Evidence – Open Access and Professional Sources

  • AVMA (2023) – Official policy against elective declawing, cropping, docking, and devocalization
    Policy Statement

  • Kraaijeveld, S. R. (2023). The Ethics of Declawing Cats**. SSRN.**
    Argues for legal bans based on ethical reasoning and documented harm
    Full Text

  • BVA Ethics Hub (Ongoing) – British Veterinary Association policy banning cosmetic surgeries
    View Site

  • Vaccarin, C.V. et al. (2024) – Shows elevated stress markers during surgery, reinforcing that elective procedures carry risk
    Study

  • Soo & van Gelderen (2024) – Veterinarians often feel pressure to perform unethical cosmetic procedures
    View Study

  • Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (2023) – Behavioral trauma and abandonment rates linked to declawing
    Abstract

:open_book: 6. Definitions

  1. Companion Animal: A domesticated animal kept primarily in a residential setting for companionship

  2. Declawing: Surgical removal of any part of the distal phalanx of a cat’s digit

  3. Tail Docking / Ear Cropping: Removal or alteration of ears or tails not required for health

  4. Devocalization: Any procedure reducing or eliminating an animal’s ability to vocalize

  5. Medically Necessary: A procedure required to treat or prevent illness, infection, or injury, as diagnosed by a licensed veterinarian

  6. Cosmetic Modification: Any surgical procedure performed solely for appearance or non-health-related behavior concerns

:hammer_and_wrench: 7. Clarifications

  • This Act does not apply to livestock, wildlife, or service animals unless designated as companion animals by the owner and residing in a domestic setting

  • It does not prohibit microchipping or standard grooming practices

  • There is no retroactive enforcement on procedures performed before the effective date

  • “Medical necessity” does not include scratching, barking, or furniture damage as justification

:rocket: 8. Implementation

  • Effective January 1 following voter approval

  • State Veterinary Board must publish updated guidance within 90 days

  • Digital reporting system must launch within 180 days

  • All clinics must notify clients of the new rules upon intake

  • Violations tracked, penalized, and reported annually by the State Animal Health Board

:pushpin: 9. Why This Proposal Is Critical

This law brings our state’s animal welfare statutes into alignment with both veterinary consensus and public expectations. It distinguishes necessary care from unnecessary harm and protects animals from permanent, avoidable procedures that compromise quality of life.

By clarifying medical standards and improving enforcement, The Pet Protection Project provides a clear, modern legal framework for ethical veterinary care.

:megaphone: 10. Call for Feedback

  • Should additional cosmetic procedures be reviewed for inclusion (e.g., whisker trimming, artificial coloring)?

  • Would you support extending these rules to companion animal breeders and pet stores?

  • Is the civil penalty structure appropriately scaled for deterrence?