Cat Fanciers' Association: Completely Condemn Declawing and Update Your 2003 Position!
The Issue
Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) : IT’S TIME TO STOP DEFENDING CAT DECLAWING!
Dear Cat Fanciers’ Association (CFA.org),
The Cat Fanciers’ Association has enormous influence in the cat world. With that influence comes responsibility.
Yet CFA is still relying on a old 2003 declawing position that says:
“CFA disapproves of routine declawing... In certain situations, including high risk of injury or disease transmission to owners with bleeding disorders or compromised immune systems, declawing may be justified in order to maintain the cat-human bond.”
That exception is deeply troubling.
Declawing is the amputation of the last joint of a cat’s toes — comparable to cutting off the end of a human finger at the first joint. It can cause chronic pain, mobility problems and behavioral complications.
CFA has immense influence over cat welfare, yet its policy continues to leave the door open to declawing for the supposed benefit of the human.
CFA’S WORDS CONTRADICT ITS OWN WELFARE MISSION
CFA’s 2024 Health and Welfare policy states that CFA, together with the World Cat Congress, “promotes the health and welfare of all cats, and the responsible breeding and ownership of them.”
Yet CFA’s declawing policy still says the procedure may be justified to protect humans with bleeding disorders or compromised immune systems.
How can CFA claim to promote the health and welfare of all cats while allowing an irreversible amputation for a human health concern?
And CFA’s current position is even more troubling.
CFA’S SEPT. 2026 ARTICLE ACTUALLY LISTS “PROS” OF DECLAWING
CFA’s Sept. 1, 2026 article, “To Declaw … Or NOT to Declaw,” has a section literally titled “PROS.”
It lists supposed benefits including reducing furniture damage, decreasing potential injury to humans, preventing climbing or escape, making homes with small children easier to manage, and even that “declawing may save an aggressive cat’s life.”
But in the same article, CFA acknowledges that declawing can:
Affect a cat’s ability to stand, walk, climb and jump normally
Cause permanent paw pain
Cause nail fragments, ingrown nails and other complications
Contribute to litter-box avoidance
Put cats at risk if they escape outdoors
And that “aggression may be enhanced by loss of claws” because cats may rely more on biting for defense
CFA even provides a section titled “If you decide declawing is necessary,” with postoperative care instructions.
If CFA acknowledges these serious harms — including permanent pain and potentially increased aggression — why is it still presenting declawing as having “PROS” and suggesting it may save an aggressive cat’s life? Why not just post the alternatives to declawing that address all the issues?
CFA HAS KNOWN THERE ARE BETTER OPTIONS
CFA’s own 2003 position acknowledges alternatives such as scratching posts, nail trimming and other solutions.
And CFA has previously acknowledged that most owners do not need to declaw their cats.
In 2019, CFA Legislative Coordinator George Eigenhauser told City the Kitty:
“CFA opposes routine declawing of cats. There are better options for most pet owners.”
But CFA also said it opposed legislation that would remove declawing as an option when considered medically necessary for the human owner, citing people with special medical situations.
The AVMA language CFA relied upon at that time has since changed, yet CFA has never updated its 2003 position.
CFA’S ACTIONS DON’T MATCH ITS WORDS
CFA does not allow declawed cats to compete in its shows.
Then, when VCA Animal Hospitals banned elective declawing in 2020, CFA publicly said:
“This is something we can get behind.”
So why won't CFA take the same clear position itself?
In January 2025, City the Kitty contacted CFA about its outdated policy. A CFA Animal Welfare representative responded: "as you can tell by our information CFA is 100% against the declawing of felines. Declawed felines are not allowed to even be shown in our Household Pet Category that mostly come from rescue shelters!" She also said, "CFA is against the declaw of any feline!"
We pointed out that this could not be reconciled with CFA’s written policy, which explicitly says declawing may be justified for certain human health concerns.
We told CFA that if it truly was 100% against declawing, it should update its 2003 position.
We never received a response.
CFA’S POLICY COULD HELP THE PRO-DECLAWING LOBBY
CFA’s continued human-health exception matters.
As more states, cities, veterinary organizations and humane organizations reject declawing, CFA’s language can be used to argue that declawing remains an acceptable option in certain circumstances.
CFA should not be giving that argument credibility.
The organization that claims to promote the welfare of all cats should not continue defending an elective procedure that permanently amputates their toes.
CFA — IT’S TIME TO CHOOSE CATS
We urge CFA to:
1. REMOVE THE “HUMAN HEALTH” EXCEPTION FROM ITS DECLAWING POLICY.
2. UPDATE ITS 2003 POSITION TO REFLECT CURRENT SCIENTIFIC AND VETERINARY KNOWLEDGE.
3. STOP PRESENTING ELECTIVE DECLAWING AS HAVING “PROS” OR AS A SOLUTION to human, property or behavioral problems.
4. PUBLICLY SUPPORT LAWS PROHIBITING ELECTIVE DECLAWING, while recognizing procedures performed for the cat’s own legitimate medical needs.
5. MAKE CFA’S POLICY MATCH ITS CLAIM THAT IT PROMOTES THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF ALL CATS.
CFA has already shown that it does not consider declawed cats appropriate for its own shows.
It has also said of VCA’s declawing ban:
“This is something we can get behind.”
Now CFA needs to go one step further and stand unequivocally against elective declawing.
TAKE ACTION
✍️ SIGN THIS PETITION AND DEMAND THAT CFA END ITS DEFENSE OF ELECTIVE CAT DECLAWING.
📧 Email CFA’s Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org.
CFA previously said it would share anti-declawing information with its community. Send them City the Kitty’s Facts vs. Myths: Humane Alternatives to Declawing information and ask CFA to finally update its policy.
Cats deserve better than a 23-year-old policy that leaves the door open to permanently amputating their toes.
It is time for CFA to match its words with its actions.
It is time for CFA to stand unequivocally for cats.
----------------------------------------
Background information.
In 2019 George Eigenhauser, CFA Legislative Coordinator, said this email to City the Kitty, "As I’ve stated to you before CFA does not support routine declawing of cats. CFA has never supported the declawing of cats. We encourage pet owners to talk to their veterinarian and find alternatives to declawing. We prohibit declawed cats from participating in CFA cat shows."
He also wrote this in 2019. "Hi Kitty,
Let me start by saying CFA opposes routine declawing of cats. There are better options for most pet owners. Most cats can be trained to scratching posts and nails can be trimmed. However, we oppose legislation which would remove that possibility when medically necessary for the human owner. Humans with special medical situations should make the decision in consultation with their medical doctor.
The AVMA, the largest veterinary organization in the U.S., says that: “The decision to declaw a cat should be made by the owners in consultation with their veterinarian. Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively OR WHEN ITS CLAWING PRESENTS AN ABOVE NORMAL HEALTH RISK FOR ITS OWNER(S).” [emphasis added].
The AVMA policy is currently under review.
George Eigenhauser
CFA Legislative Coordinator"
In 2019 Sharon Coleman said this in an email to City the Kitty, "California has a long history with failed legislation on declawing of domestic cats, with yet another bill this year, Assembly Bill 1230. After the author presented the bill in its first policy committee, testimony taken and he closed, asking for the usual "aye" vote, he looked up to realize that the most of the committee members had left the room. The Chair asked for a motion. There was no motion and no vote. The author presented his other bill about allowing immediate adoption of under 8 week impounded kittens, the members returned and passed this bill unanimously.
California legislative committees are staffed by some very good "consultants," many like Robby Sumner who wrote the analysis of AB 1230 are very hard working, astute attorneys who try to present the issues and prior history of a bill, and there is a lot of history on cat declawing in California. In fact, there had been even earlier state legislation in 2004 where domestic cats were removed from the bill prior to passage and enactment as Penal Code 597.6, link below, "big" cats only. Also following is a link to the Analysis tab of AB 1230's web page so you can open the link to the analysis, read the bill and see its history.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=597.6
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1230
Sharon A. Coleman
CFA Legislative Legal Analyst"
The CFA has been against banning this animal cruelty for a long time and is aligning with the AVMA on this issue. Here's what CFA said about the West Hollywood ban. "According to Joan Miller, CFA legislative coordinator, the association disapproves of declawing cats, as well as tendonectomies. But Miller believes that the decision to have one of the procedures is a private matter and should be decided on a case-by-case basis."We're in an awkward position here because we don't approve of (the procedure), but at the same time, we feel that veterinary procedures should be decided between a pet owner and their veterinarian," she said.
Following the council's vote, Sharon Coleman, legislative legal analyst with the CFA, wrote Mayor Sal Guarriello and city council members on behalf of The Animal Council, explaining that declawing is a private matter between veterinarians and their clients. If adopted, the prohibition could interfere with the veterinarian's professional judgment and the client's right to privacy in obtaining services from state-licensed veterinarians." https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2003-03-01/california-city-weighs-ban-animal-declawing
2,201
The Issue
Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) : IT’S TIME TO STOP DEFENDING CAT DECLAWING!
Dear Cat Fanciers’ Association (CFA.org),
The Cat Fanciers’ Association has enormous influence in the cat world. With that influence comes responsibility.
Yet CFA is still relying on a old 2003 declawing position that says:
“CFA disapproves of routine declawing... In certain situations, including high risk of injury or disease transmission to owners with bleeding disorders or compromised immune systems, declawing may be justified in order to maintain the cat-human bond.”
That exception is deeply troubling.
Declawing is the amputation of the last joint of a cat’s toes — comparable to cutting off the end of a human finger at the first joint. It can cause chronic pain, mobility problems and behavioral complications.
CFA has immense influence over cat welfare, yet its policy continues to leave the door open to declawing for the supposed benefit of the human.
CFA’S WORDS CONTRADICT ITS OWN WELFARE MISSION
CFA’s 2024 Health and Welfare policy states that CFA, together with the World Cat Congress, “promotes the health and welfare of all cats, and the responsible breeding and ownership of them.”
Yet CFA’s declawing policy still says the procedure may be justified to protect humans with bleeding disorders or compromised immune systems.
How can CFA claim to promote the health and welfare of all cats while allowing an irreversible amputation for a human health concern?
And CFA’s current position is even more troubling.
CFA’S SEPT. 2026 ARTICLE ACTUALLY LISTS “PROS” OF DECLAWING
CFA’s Sept. 1, 2026 article, “To Declaw … Or NOT to Declaw,” has a section literally titled “PROS.”
It lists supposed benefits including reducing furniture damage, decreasing potential injury to humans, preventing climbing or escape, making homes with small children easier to manage, and even that “declawing may save an aggressive cat’s life.”
But in the same article, CFA acknowledges that declawing can:
Affect a cat’s ability to stand, walk, climb and jump normally
Cause permanent paw pain
Cause nail fragments, ingrown nails and other complications
Contribute to litter-box avoidance
Put cats at risk if they escape outdoors
And that “aggression may be enhanced by loss of claws” because cats may rely more on biting for defense
CFA even provides a section titled “If you decide declawing is necessary,” with postoperative care instructions.
If CFA acknowledges these serious harms — including permanent pain and potentially increased aggression — why is it still presenting declawing as having “PROS” and suggesting it may save an aggressive cat’s life? Why not just post the alternatives to declawing that address all the issues?
CFA HAS KNOWN THERE ARE BETTER OPTIONS
CFA’s own 2003 position acknowledges alternatives such as scratching posts, nail trimming and other solutions.
And CFA has previously acknowledged that most owners do not need to declaw their cats.
In 2019, CFA Legislative Coordinator George Eigenhauser told City the Kitty:
“CFA opposes routine declawing of cats. There are better options for most pet owners.”
But CFA also said it opposed legislation that would remove declawing as an option when considered medically necessary for the human owner, citing people with special medical situations.
The AVMA language CFA relied upon at that time has since changed, yet CFA has never updated its 2003 position.
CFA’S ACTIONS DON’T MATCH ITS WORDS
CFA does not allow declawed cats to compete in its shows.
Then, when VCA Animal Hospitals banned elective declawing in 2020, CFA publicly said:
“This is something we can get behind.”
So why won't CFA take the same clear position itself?
In January 2025, City the Kitty contacted CFA about its outdated policy. A CFA Animal Welfare representative responded: "as you can tell by our information CFA is 100% against the declawing of felines. Declawed felines are not allowed to even be shown in our Household Pet Category that mostly come from rescue shelters!" She also said, "CFA is against the declaw of any feline!"
We pointed out that this could not be reconciled with CFA’s written policy, which explicitly says declawing may be justified for certain human health concerns.
We told CFA that if it truly was 100% against declawing, it should update its 2003 position.
We never received a response.
CFA’S POLICY COULD HELP THE PRO-DECLAWING LOBBY
CFA’s continued human-health exception matters.
As more states, cities, veterinary organizations and humane organizations reject declawing, CFA’s language can be used to argue that declawing remains an acceptable option in certain circumstances.
CFA should not be giving that argument credibility.
The organization that claims to promote the welfare of all cats should not continue defending an elective procedure that permanently amputates their toes.
CFA — IT’S TIME TO CHOOSE CATS
We urge CFA to:
1. REMOVE THE “HUMAN HEALTH” EXCEPTION FROM ITS DECLAWING POLICY.
2. UPDATE ITS 2003 POSITION TO REFLECT CURRENT SCIENTIFIC AND VETERINARY KNOWLEDGE.
3. STOP PRESENTING ELECTIVE DECLAWING AS HAVING “PROS” OR AS A SOLUTION to human, property or behavioral problems.
4. PUBLICLY SUPPORT LAWS PROHIBITING ELECTIVE DECLAWING, while recognizing procedures performed for the cat’s own legitimate medical needs.
5. MAKE CFA’S POLICY MATCH ITS CLAIM THAT IT PROMOTES THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF ALL CATS.
CFA has already shown that it does not consider declawed cats appropriate for its own shows.
It has also said of VCA’s declawing ban:
“This is something we can get behind.”
Now CFA needs to go one step further and stand unequivocally against elective declawing.
TAKE ACTION
✍️ SIGN THIS PETITION AND DEMAND THAT CFA END ITS DEFENSE OF ELECTIVE CAT DECLAWING.
📧 Email CFA’s Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org.
CFA previously said it would share anti-declawing information with its community. Send them City the Kitty’s Facts vs. Myths: Humane Alternatives to Declawing information and ask CFA to finally update its policy.
Cats deserve better than a 23-year-old policy that leaves the door open to permanently amputating their toes.
It is time for CFA to match its words with its actions.
It is time for CFA to stand unequivocally for cats.
----------------------------------------
Background information.
In 2019 George Eigenhauser, CFA Legislative Coordinator, said this email to City the Kitty, "As I’ve stated to you before CFA does not support routine declawing of cats. CFA has never supported the declawing of cats. We encourage pet owners to talk to their veterinarian and find alternatives to declawing. We prohibit declawed cats from participating in CFA cat shows."
He also wrote this in 2019. "Hi Kitty,
Let me start by saying CFA opposes routine declawing of cats. There are better options for most pet owners. Most cats can be trained to scratching posts and nails can be trimmed. However, we oppose legislation which would remove that possibility when medically necessary for the human owner. Humans with special medical situations should make the decision in consultation with their medical doctor.
The AVMA, the largest veterinary organization in the U.S., says that: “The decision to declaw a cat should be made by the owners in consultation with their veterinarian. Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively OR WHEN ITS CLAWING PRESENTS AN ABOVE NORMAL HEALTH RISK FOR ITS OWNER(S).” [emphasis added].
The AVMA policy is currently under review.
George Eigenhauser
CFA Legislative Coordinator"
In 2019 Sharon Coleman said this in an email to City the Kitty, "California has a long history with failed legislation on declawing of domestic cats, with yet another bill this year, Assembly Bill 1230. After the author presented the bill in its first policy committee, testimony taken and he closed, asking for the usual "aye" vote, he looked up to realize that the most of the committee members had left the room. The Chair asked for a motion. There was no motion and no vote. The author presented his other bill about allowing immediate adoption of under 8 week impounded kittens, the members returned and passed this bill unanimously.
California legislative committees are staffed by some very good "consultants," many like Robby Sumner who wrote the analysis of AB 1230 are very hard working, astute attorneys who try to present the issues and prior history of a bill, and there is a lot of history on cat declawing in California. In fact, there had been even earlier state legislation in 2004 where domestic cats were removed from the bill prior to passage and enactment as Penal Code 597.6, link below, "big" cats only. Also following is a link to the Analysis tab of AB 1230's web page so you can open the link to the analysis, read the bill and see its history.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=597.6
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1230
Sharon A. Coleman
CFA Legislative Legal Analyst"
The CFA has been against banning this animal cruelty for a long time and is aligning with the AVMA on this issue. Here's what CFA said about the West Hollywood ban. "According to Joan Miller, CFA legislative coordinator, the association disapproves of declawing cats, as well as tendonectomies. But Miller believes that the decision to have one of the procedures is a private matter and should be decided on a case-by-case basis."We're in an awkward position here because we don't approve of (the procedure), but at the same time, we feel that veterinary procedures should be decided between a pet owner and their veterinarian," she said.
Following the council's vote, Sharon Coleman, legislative legal analyst with the CFA, wrote Mayor Sal Guarriello and city council members on behalf of The Animal Council, explaining that declawing is a private matter between veterinarians and their clients. If adopted, the prohibition could interfere with the veterinarian's professional judgment and the client's right to privacy in obtaining services from state-licensed veterinarians." https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2003-03-01/california-city-weighs-ban-animal-declawing
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on October 28, 2025