Story published on Sept. 9, 2026.

City the Kitty’s Cat Fanciers’ Association Petition.

DANGEROUS INFORMATION FOR CATS: CAT FANCIERS’ ASSOCIATION’S NEW ARTICLE PRESENTS THE “PROS” OF DECLAWING, ACKNOWLEDGES SERIOUS HARMS, AND TELLS OWNERS WHAT TO DO “IF YOU DECIDE DECLAWING IS NECESSARY”—DESPITE CFA CLAIMING IT IS “100% AGAINST” DECLAWING

CFA’s September 2026 article presents “PROS” and “CONS” of declawing — instead of just clearly explaining why declawing harms cats and how owners can solve their concerns without inhumanely amputating their cats’ toes and claws.

The Cat Fanciers’ Association (CFA) has enormous influence in the cat world and a responsibility to provide accurate, current information that protects cats.

Yet CFA’s September 1, 2026 article by Kate Preston, “To Declaw … Or NOT to Declaw,” raises serious questions about its claim that it is “100% against” declawing.

To be fair, CFA does include humane alternatives in the article. But an organization that is truly 100% against declawing should not frame this dangerous and inhumane amputation procedure as having “PROS.”

It should explain the facts about the harm declawing can cause and show owners how to address scratching, furniture damage, aggression and other concerns without declawing them.

Instead, CFA lists these supposed “PROS”:

Reducing furniture damage.
Decreasing potential injury to humans.
Preventing climbing or escape.
Making homes with small children easier to manage.
“Declawing may save an aggressive cat’s life.”

The story also includes a section titled “If you decide declawing is necessary,” with postoperative instructions.

That is difficult to reconcile with CFA’s claim that it is “100% against” declawing.

CFA’S OWN POLICY CONTRADICTS “100% AGAINST”

In January 2025, City the Kitty contacted CFA about its outdated 2003 declawing guidance statement.

CFA Animal Welfare representative Charlene Campbell 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! I will glad to share any anti declaw information with our community you share.”

Campbell went on to say:

“CFA is against the declaw of any feline!”

But CFA’s official 2003 guidance statement says it “disapproves of routine declawing,” not all declawing.

It says, “CFA disapproves of routine declawing or tendonectomy surgery in lieu of alternative solutions to prevent household damage. 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.”

There is no data that shows that declawing saves a cat’s life or maintains the cat-human bond. None.

There are no human health or veterinary organizations that condone declawing for human health issues since declawing causes many cats to become aggressive and bite and that’s a much bigger risk for a human. Number 11 in our facts vs myths section has all the data.

City the Kitty pointed out the contradiction to CFA but they never responded.

Here are some of CFA’s Facebook posts about declawing.

CFA SAYS IT PROMOTES THE WELFARE OF “ALL CATS”

CFA’s 2024 Health and Welfare policy says CFA and the World Cat Congress “promotes the health and welfare of all cats.”

Yet its declawing policy still condones the procedure because of a human’s health condition.

CFA Even Opposed California’s 2004 Exotic Cat Declawing Ban

In 2004, the Cat Fanciers’ Association (CFA) opposed California legislation that would prohibit declawing exotic and native wild cats except when performed for a therapeutic purpose. The bill, AB 1857, passed the Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 29, 2004. It took effect in January 2005.

CFA’s position, entered into the official legislative record, stated:

“The Cat Fanciers’ Association (CFA) opposes any legislative attempts to target veterinary elective surgical procedures. As argued by CFA, few declawing procedures are executed on exotic/wild cats in California so there is no pressing need for this law, and the option to declaw should remain available to experienced individuals based on their veterinarian’s professional judgment and advice. CFA objects to the criminalization of a lawful procedure that is safe when competently performed and possibly necessary for other than “medical necessity” for exotic cats.”

CFA ACKNOWLEDGES SERIOUS HARMS — WHILE LISTING “PROS”

CFA’s 2026 article acknowledges that declawing can affect normal standing, walking, climbing and jumping; cause permanent paw pain; cause nail fragments and ingrown nails; contribute to litter-box avoidance; increase risks if cats escape outdoors; and increase aggression.

CFA states: “Aggression may be enhanced by loss of claws”

Yet the same article says: “declawing may save an aggressive cat’s life.”

How can declawing supposedly save an aggressive cat while CFA acknowledges that losing claws may increase aggression?

And why present this as a “pros and cons” debate instead of clearly explaining the risks and promoting humane solutions?

CFA ACKNOWLEDGED ALTERNATIVES—BUT DEFENDED AN EXCEPTION

CFA’s own policy recognizes alternatives to declawing, including nail trimming, claw covers, scratching posts and redirecting cats to appropriate surfaces.

In 2019, CFA Legislative Coordinator George Eigenhauser told City the Kitty by email:

“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.”

But Eigenhauser then defended an exception for human health:

“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.”

To support that position, he cited the AVMA’s then-current policy, which said declawing could be considered when a cat’s clawing “PRESENTS AN ABOVE NORMAL HEALTH RISK FOR ITS OWNER(S).”

The AVMA removed that language in its 2020 policy update. Did CFA update their position after that? Nope.

When City the Kitty challenged Eigenhauser on the facts, asking, “Are you someone who doesn’t believe in facts, data, and science George?” he replied:

“Insults are the arguments of those who know they are in the wrong.”

He then refused further responses.

CFA Legislative Legal Analyst Sharon A. Coleman likewise wrote in 2019 that CFA “oppose[s] legislation which would remove that possibility when medically necessary for the human owner.”

CFA PRAISED VCA FOR BANNING DECLAWING

When VCA Animal Hospitals banned declawing in 2020, CFA responded:

“This is something we can get behind.”

Yet CFA representatives had opposed legislation to remove declawing as an option, while CFA’s policy maintained a human-health exception.

That history conflicts with CFA Animal Welfare representative Charlene Campbell’s 2025 statement:

“CFA is 100% against the declawing of felines.”
“CFA is against the declaw of any feline!”

SO WHO IS REALLY SHAPING CFA’S GUIDANCE STATEMENT ON DECLAWING?

Are different people within CFA taking different positions? The organization’s statements and policies contain multiple contradictions and discrepancies.

So which position does CFA actually stand behind—and who is making these decisions?

If CFA is truly “100% against” declawing and “against the declaw of any feline,” why won’t it unequivocally oppose it and support legislation to end it?

CFA’S September 2026 ARTICLE ALSO RELIES ON ANTIQUATED AND QUESTIONABLE SOURCES

The sourcing raises another serious concern.

CFA’s 2026 article relies on old, outdated, undated and secondary sources, including a 1990 book and an undated website.

Among them:

CatHelp-Online says declawing is unlikely to drastically change a cat’s behavior or personality and that most operations are performed safely without complications.

Yet CFA’s own article acknowledges potential behavioral harm, including increased aggression.

CFA also cites a 2020 Reader’s Digest article quoting a veterinarian, Dr Samantha Canup, who recommends declawing “if it ensures the cat will have a home for the rest of its life.” (We reached out to this vet in 2020 about her comment in that story and asked her a few questions including if she is up-to-date about the latest studies and facts about declawing that show how bad it is for cats but did not receive a response.)

Where is the evidence that declawing prevents surrender, abandonment or euthanasia. There is none because declawing often causes the opposite to happen.

CFA also cites “How Old Does a Cat Have to Be to Get Declawed and Fixed?” which treats declawing like a routine procedure, recommends waiting until at least six months and claims newer techniques have made it “safer and more effective than ever before.”

Where is the credible scientific evidence for that claim?

CFA is therefore using sources that include:

A 1990 book.
An undated website.
Secondary articles.
Material minimizing behavioral consequences.
Material presenting declawing as a way to keep a cat in a home.
Material treating declawing as a routine procedure.
Unsupported claims that newer techniques make it “safer and more effective.”

That is not what current, evidence-based cat-welfare education should look like.

CFA CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

CFA says: “100% against” declawing.
Its 2003 declawing guidance statement says: declawing “may be justified.”

CFA says: it opposes declawing of “any feline.”
Its 2026 article says: there are “PROS.”

CFA acknowledges: pain, impaired movement, litter-box problems and possible increased aggression.
It also says: declawing may save an aggressive cat’s life.

CFA says: there are better alternatives.
It still defends: a human-health exception.

CFA praised: VCA’s elective declawing ban.
CFA itself: Yet won’t completely condemn declawing and support legislation to ban it.

CFA claims: to promote the welfare of “all cats.”
Its 2026 article: relies on outdated, questionable and permissive sources.

IT’S TIME FOR CFA TO UPDATE ITS 2003 GUIDANCE STATEMENT

CFA’s declawing policy was revised in 2003.

More than two decades later, CFA is still maintaining a human-health exception while publishing an article that presents supposed “PROS” of declawing and tells owners what to do “if you decide declawing is necessary.”

CFA already knows there are humane alternatives.

An organization that is truly 100% against declawing should explain why declawing is harmful and help owners solve their concerns without amputating their cats’ toes — not present declawing as a choice with “pros” and “cons.”

CFA SHOULD:

1. REMOVE the human-health exception from its guidance statement.

2. REPLACE its 2003 policy with a current, evidence-based position.

3. STOP presenting elective declawing as having “PROS.”

4. STOP using outdated, questionable and permissive sources.

5. FOCUS on humane solutions to scratching, furniture damage, aggression and other owner concerns.

6. SUPPORT laws prohibiting declawing

7. MAKE ITS POLICY MATCH ITS CLAIM that it promotes the health and welfare of all cats.

THE BOTTOM LINE

CFA’s Animal Welfare representative said:

“CFA is 100% against the declawing of felines.”

But CFA’s policy says declawing “may be justified.”

Its 2026 article has a section called “PROS.”

It tells owners what to do “if you decide declawing is necessary.”

It acknowledges serious harms while still presenting supposed benefits.

And it relies on antiquated and questionable sources, including a 1990 book and an undated website.

CFA cannot credibly claim to be “100% against” declawing while its own policy and educational material continue to leave the door open to it.

CFA has already said of VCA’s declawing ban: