California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB867

Introduced
2/19/25  
Refer
3/3/25  
Report Pass
3/24/25  
Refer
3/25/25  
Report Pass
4/1/25  
Refer
4/1/25  
Report Pass
4/23/25  
Engrossed
4/28/25  
Refer
4/29/25  
Refer
5/7/25  
Report Pass
6/17/25  
Refer
6/17/25  
Report Pass
6/23/25  
Refer
6/23/25  
Enrolled
9/9/25  
Enrolled
9/9/25  
Chaptered
10/9/25  

Caption

Veterinary medicine: cat declawing.

Impact

The bill significantly impacts the authority and regulatory framework governing veterinary practices in California. It empowers the California Veterinary Medical Board to impose sanctions, including denial, revocation, or suspension of veterinary licenses for non-compliance, specifically if claw removal surgeries are performed for any purpose other than therapeutic. This strengthens regulations meant to protect the welfare of felines and establishes a clear legal standard for veterinary practitioners to follow.

Summary

Assembly Bill 867, known as the Veterinary Medicine: Cat Declawing Bill, amends several sections of the Business and Professions Code. The bill specifically addresses the practices surrounding the declawing of cats, categorizing procedures such as tendonectomy, onychectomy, or claw removal as operations that fall under the practice of veterinary medicine. The law mandates that these procedures can only be performed for therapeutic purposes. This intention is to ensure that declawing is not practiced for non-essential reasons, aligning with animal welfare considerations.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 867 appears to be generally supportive among animal welfare advocates who emphasize the ethical considerations of declawing. However, there may be contention among some veterinary professionals who view the regulations as overreaching, limiting their discretion in medical practice. Overall, the sentiment is in favor of animal protection, seeking to eliminate non-essential declawing practices which are often criticized for their cruelty and potential pain inflicted on the animals.

Contention

A notable point of contention is the bill’s provision that declares it does not preempt any local ordinances that were established before January 1, 2026, regarding feline declawing. This means existing local laws that impose stricter regulations than those set by the state will remain in effect, which could lead to a complex regulatory environment. Critics argue that this could create confusion among pet owners and veterinary professionals alike regarding the legality of requested procedures, while proponents see it as a necessary measure to preserve local control over animal welfare issues.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB1502

Veterinary medicine: California Veterinary Medical Board.

CA AB1999

Veterinary medicine.

CA H0805

Veterinary Medicine

CA S0796

Veterinary Medicine

CA AB2010

Veterinary medicine: veterinary surgery premises: spay and neuter services.

CA H0871

Practice of Veterinary Medicine

CA SB85

Veterinary medicine; veterinarian-client-patient relationship further specified; scope of practice inside and outside veterinarian-client-patient relationship further defined

CA S1382

Practice of Veterinary Medicine

CA AB1458

Physical therapy and veterinary medicine: animal physical therapy.

CA SB185

Veterinary medicine; veterinarian-client-patient relationship further provided; refilling prescription regulations; relationship shared among a location, provided

Similar Bills

CO HB1285

Veterinary Workforce Requirements

AZ HB4019

Veterinary practices; ownership; oversight

FL H0805

Veterinary Medicine

FL S0796

Veterinary Medicine

CA AB516

Registered veterinary technicians and veterinary assistants: scope of practice.

CA AB2010

Veterinary medicine: veterinary surgery premises: spay and neuter services.