BANNING CAT DECLAWING: CAN WE DO IT IN WASHINGTON STATE?
- Jun 21
- 6 min read
In 2025 the State of California banned the practice of declawing cats unless there was a proven medical reason for the procedure. With this ban, California became the fifth U.S. state to ban declawing, joining New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Massachusetts. However, this controversial practice is still allowed within Washington State. The sole exception is the City of Tacoma which became the first Washington city to ban the practice in 2023.
The first attempt at a statewide ban occurred in the 2025-2026 Washington State Legislative Session with House Bill 1904. Ultimately it failed to pass.
Can a statewide ban on declawing cats pass? It’s certainly possible but it may need more public support and pressure. Just because it is not widely practiced in our area does not mean cat declawing does not exist. It is still advertised and practiced in Seattle and King County. However, it is not an issue generally prioritized by most of the area’s animal welfare groups.
How many attempts at statewide declawing bans have there been in Washington?
So far there has been only one statewide attempt to ban cat declawing. That attempt was House Bill 1904 from the 2025-2026 Washington State Legislative Session. Advocates plan to try again in the 2027-2028 session.
What was Washington State House Bill (HB) 1904?
State Representative Strom Peterson, Democrat - District 1 (Paine Field, Edmonds, Mukilteo) introduced House Bill 1904 which entailed the following:
Prohibiting the performance of a declawing procedure on a cat, except for therapeutic purposes.
Establishing fines for the unlawful performance of a declawing procedure on a cat.
Establishing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for veterinarians performing declawing procedures on cats.
After a public hearing, the committee created a substitute bill that removed the disciplinary measures and record-keeping requirements for veterinarians (see below.)
What is declawing?
Feline onychectomy or "declawing" is a surgery that removes the first digital bone of a cat by
laser, scalpel, or nail trimmer. This includes several types of procedures that:
(1) remove a portion of the paw or digit of a cat in order to remove a claw;
(2) cut or modify the tendon of the limb, paw, or digit of a cat in order to prohibit the normal movement of a claw; or
(3) prevent the normal functioning of one or more claws of a cat.
The term does not include nail filing, nail trimming, or the placement of temporary nail caps on a cat.
What is a therapeutic purpose?
The term "therapeutic purpose" includes actions that are matters of medical necessity related to a condition in the claw, nail bed, or toe bone that jeopardizes the animal's health. The term does not include procedures performed for cosmetic purposes or convenience in the keeping or handling of an animal.
What happened to HB 1904?
The bill was first read in February 2025 and carried over into the 60-day 2026 legislative session where it made it to the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness. There was a public hearing in January and the committee passed a substitute version of the bill.
This substitute bill kept most of the language in the original bill but eliminated language addressing enforcement of the law. The substitute bill removed veterinarian recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to declawing procedures, as well as the fines for performing a declawing procedure and a reference to disciplinary action. The argument for removal of the language was that recordkeeping and reporting to the state were unnecessary and that the bill would increase the burden on small veterinary businesses.
Thirteen members of the committee passed this substitute bill. Despite the weakened language, the bill failed to advance past the House Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is the body that determines which bills are scheduled for a floor vote by the full House. If the Rules Committee does not refer a bill for a floor vote, legislators do not have to take a position on that via a public vote.
Who sponsored the bill?
The following state representatives were cosponsors of the original bill. All of them are Western Washington Democrats.
Mari Leavitt, Democrat - District 28 (Steilacoom, Fort Lewis)
Lisa Parshley, Democrat - District 22 (Olympia, Tumwater)
Mary Fosse, Democrat - District 38 (Everett, Marysville)
Nicole Macri, Democrat - District 43 (Seattle’s Capitol Hill and University of Washington)
What were the veterinary requirements outlined in the original HB 1904 that were removed in the substitute bill?
The original bill decreed that a veterinarian who performs a declawing procedure on a cat would have to maintain records of the procedure for four years after the last contact with the cat. The records would be subject to audit by the Veterinary Board of Governors (Board) and must include:
the name and address of the cat's owner;
the name and address of the person who paid for the procedure; and
a description of the cat, including the cat's name, breed, date of birth, sex, color, markings, current weight, date and time of the procedure, reason for the procedure, and information to support the diagnosis.
Any person who performed a declawing procedure on a cat must report to the Board the number of procedures performed each year. The Board must retain the reports for four years. The reports may not be publicly disseminated and are not considered public records for the purpose of public archiving.
The substitute bill removed these requirements.
What would be the consequences of violating the requirements of the original bill that were removed in the substitute?
A person who performs a declawing procedure on a cat, other than for therapeutic purposes, would be subject to fines of $1,000 for the first offense, $1,500 for the second offense, and $2,500 for all subsequent offenses.
A veterinarian who violated any of the practice, recording, and reporting standards could be
subject to disciplinary action by the Veterinary Board of Governors.
Local government ordinances regulating the performance of a declawing procedure on a cat would be preempted, meaning they would predate the state law and remain in place.
The substitute bill removed these requirements.
Who supported the bill?
Individuals from both the animal welfare and the veterinary communities testified in support of the bill. Of note is the representation from Tacoma, the only city in the state to have banned the practice.
Representative Strom Peterson, prime sponsor
Dr. Jennifer Conrad, Paw Project (National organization focused on the end of declawing. It has a Washington State chapter.)
Tracey Frankcom; Leah Houser; Craig Tebeau, DVM, The Cat Doctor Veterinary Center (Federal Way business)
John Hines, Council Member, City of Tacoma
Stephanie Hillman, Humane World for Animals
Leslie Dalzell, THE HUMANE SOCIETY FOR TACOMA and PIERCE COUNTY;
Other organizations either submitted written testimony or otherwise rallied support for the bill. These groups included Alley Cat Allies, Pasado’s Safe Haven, and the Washington Federation of Animal Care & Control Agencies.
We are unaware of any public advocacy from local Seattle or King County animal welfare organizations.
Who opposed the bill?
The only public testimony seeking revisions was from Greg Hanon of the Washington State Veterinary Medical Association. Even then, the WA VMA did not oppose the bill but only sought to lessen what they considered a burden on small businesses. This is significant as the most outspoken critics of declawing bans in other states have been the veterinary industry.
So why did HB 1904 fail?
It’s hard to say but it appears that the bill was simply a casualty of short legislative sessions. Washington State has a part-time legislature with two-year legislative sessions. The first year is a 90 day session that involves the passing of a budget. The second year is a shorter 60 day session. There were so many bills facing the legislature dealing with the state’s significant budget shortfall that this simply wasn’t prioritized. On the other hand, one could argue that a bill with little opposition and a negligible impact on the budget would have been a relatively quick vote.
What is the bottom line?
Advocates are likely to try again with a good chance of eventually getting this past the House, especially given the light resistance from the veterinary industry. However, the lack of public pressure and testimony from more groups and advocates may create a lack of urgency in getting it to a full vote in the House. There are many bills with which it is competing.
In addition, it is unclear how the Senate will respond to a declawing ban. No such bill reached this body.
Sources:
