Screenshot captured on October 21, 2025 from the website of the AVMA’s Pres.-Elect’s website. (This information was taken down shortly after CitytheKitty.org posted this shocking story.)
PLEASE sign our petition to the AVMA’s Pres-Elect Dr Robert Knapp and VP Dr Elizabeth Boggier. https://www.change.org/p/avma-pres-elect-vp-stop-declawing-at-your-clinics-support-declawing-bans
ANAHEIM, CA. — “Yes, they do them all the time, yes.”
That was the response in September 2025 from an employee at Knapp Veterinary Hospital in Columbus, OH, the vet clinic owned by newly elected AVMA President-Elect Dr. Robert Knapp, when asked whether the clinic’s veterinarians perform cat declawing often.
One employee said all their veterinarians—including Dr. Robert Knapp—perform laser declaws, adding they are done “Monday through Friday.” Another employee said that all four of their doctors can do a declaw/spay and it just depends on what day of the week it is.
On July 11, 2026, at the AVMA convention in Anaheim, CA. the AVMA House of Delegates (HOD) unanimously elected Dr. Robert Knapp as its 2026-27 president-elect and Dr. Elizabeth Boggier as its vice president.
The AVMA has now elevated two declawing veterinarians to its highest leadership roles, whose clinic employees told City the Kitty researchers that Dr. Knapp and Dr. Boggier personally perform this inhumane amputation procedure. The decision comes despite decades of scientific research linking declawing to chronic pain, mobility issues, and behavioral problems in cats.
A September and October 2025 investigation by the nonprofit City the Kitty found that Knapp Veterinary Hospital even advertised their declawing service on their website.
Employees quoted prices of $416.97 – $455 for a declaw alone and $680 to $720 when combined with a spay or neuter. The hospital’s website promoted “Declaw with laser (front feet only)”. (The hospital took the declaw information off their website shortly after CitytheKitty.org’s story was published in October 2025.)
Researchers also found that employees at MountainView Veterinary Hospital in Denville, New Jersey, identified Dr. Elizabeth Boggier as one of two surgeons who perform declaws. Staff said the hospital considers owner-related circumstances—including people with thin skin, those taking blood thinners, and hospice patients—as reasons the procedure could be approved.
The leadership elections come as the AVMA continues to refuse to fully condemn declawing of domestic cats. Instead, the organization says it “respects the veterinarian’s right to use professional judgment” when deciding whether declawing is appropriate, and many AVMA delegates and members have repeatedly opposed state legislation that would prohibit the procedure and successfully stopped bills that would have protected cats from this animal cruelty.
In his acceptance speech, Knapp highlighted the legacy of his family’s veterinary hospital, Knapp Veterinary Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, founded by his grandfather in 1945 and where he continues to see patients today. He said he was “proud to continue the legacy of care and service to our clients, the animals they care for, and our profession.”
That legacy is now under scrutiny. Staff at Knapp Veterinary Hospital told City the Kitty researchers that Dr. Knapp and the hospital’s veterinarians perform declaws “all the time” and “Monday through Friday.” Declawing is the amputation of the last bone of each toe and has been linked to chronic pain, mobility issues, and behavioral problems in cats—raising questions about whether routinely performing the procedure aligns with a commitment to animal care and welfare.
The election highlights the central controversy surrounding the AVMA’s declawing policy: the organization has acknowledged the serious harm of declawing by condemning the procedure in exotic and wild cats in 2012, yet it refuses to take the same position for domestic cats despite the procedure involving the same amputation and carrying the same risks of pain and suffering.
Instead, the AVMA continues to defend declawing as a matter of “professional judgment,” opposes legislation that would prohibit the practice, and has now elevated two declawing veterinarians to its highest elected leadership positions.
The contrast exposes a profound inconsistency between the AVMA’s stated commitment to science and animal welfare and its continued defense of a painful and inhumane amputation procedure that is unethical, animal cruelty, harmful, and a practice that should be completely eliminated from the profession.
- After City the Kitty published its story in Oct. 2026, the nonprofit attempted to obtain responses from Dr. Knapp and AVMA leadership. City the Kitty emailed Dr. Knapp, Michael San Filippo the AVMA’s Senior Media Relations Manager, and other AVMA officials asking whether Knapp Veterinary Hospital had stopped declawing or had simply removed declawing information from its website after public scrutiny. The email noted that the clinic first removed language advertising laser declawing and later removed its entire declawing section. City the Kitty also asked whether the AVMA had advised the clinic to remove the information because continuing to advertise declawing reflected poorly on the organization. No response was received.
- City the Kitty also contacted AVMA leadership in January seeking comment for a separate investigation into declawing as a source of moral stress and moral injury among veterinary professionals. The organization asked how the AVMA reconciles its focus on veterinary well-being with its continued defense of declawing as a matter of “professional judgment” when many veterinary professionals report being ethically distressed by being required to schedule, assist with, or care for cats after the procedure. The AVMA was also asked whether it has surveyed members about declawing-related moral stress, how it addresses potential conflicts when leaders or delegates connected to declawing clinics help shape policy, and whether it would develop resources addressing declawing-related ethical distress. The AVMA did not respond to those questions.
Here are the questions that were asked to the AVMA by City the Kitty nonprofit.
- Has the AVMA conducted a formal poll or survey of its membership to assess how veterinarians/veterinary teams feel about elective declawing continuing in practice?
If so, what were the results, and will they be made public?
If not, is the AVMA considering doing so, given the issue’s relevance to member wellbeing?
- How does the AVMA reconcile its extensive guidance on moral stress with its continued defense of declawing as a matter of “professional judgment,” when most of your due paying members probably identify the procedure as inhumane, wrong, ethically distressing, and below the standard of care?
- Why does the AVMA continue to oppose or lobby against state and local anti-declawing laws—laws that would reduce both animal suffering and moral stress and injury among veterinary teams? How can you justify keeping declawing legal while knowing it harms so many of your own members?
We are receiving numerous firsthand accounts from veterinary staff nationwide describing deep moral stress and lasting injury from being forced to assist in, witness, or care for cats after declawing. These are not isolated cases—they are consistent, ethical professionals speaking out about a procedure they are against and know is wrong.
By defending declawing under the guise of “professional judgment,” the AVMA appears to prioritize a small, outnumbered group of declawing veterinarians over the welfare of cats and the majority of veterinary professionals.
Does the AVMA believe this is acceptable and if so, why?
- The AVMA often stresses putting its members’ interests and professional freedom first. When it comes to declawing—a procedure many clinics still offer and profit from—does this mean vets’ financial interests take priority over animal welfare and ethics?
And how does the AVMA manage potential conflicts of interest when leaders or delegates whose clinics perform declawing help shape the policy? Our story shows how several AVMA decision-makers have direct ties to declawing services, yet there’s no clear public rule requiring them to step aside during policy decisions.
Why doesn’t the AVMA require recusal for anyone with financial ties to declawing when voting on its declawing policy?
- Does the AVMA want to respond to concerns raised by members and the public when senior leadership—including the incoming 2026–27 President-Elect—operate clinics that advertise and routinely perform declawing, potentially signaling acceptance of the practice despite evolving science and ethics? After we published our story, Dr. Knapp’s clinic removed its declawing information from its website. Does this mean the clinic has stopped declawing—or was the information removed simply because advertising animal cruelty brought public scrutiny?
- Given that you know that many veterinarians and staff experience moral stress and injury from performing or assisting with elective declawing, is the AVMA considering new awareness campaigns or educational efforts to highlight this specific source of ethical distress and burnout among members?
- Will the AVMA develop targeted awareness resources—such as articles, webinars, or wellbeing modules—to help the profession recognize and address this moral stress caused by declawing?
The AVMA emphasizes that addressing moral stress requires leadership, advocacy, and systemic change—not only individual coping strategies. Many ethical and humane veterinarians and veterinary professionals see declawing as one of the most preventable sources of moral stress and injury in the profession today.
We would welcome your insight into how the AVMA is evaluating this issue moving forward, if you care about this specific source of moral stress and injury to your members, and whether changes to policy or advocacy are being considered in light of you being aware of its impact on both animal welfare and member well-being.