Nevada Humane Society Advocating for Pets
Our Clinic Manager Rebecca Goff was instrumental in speaking up and advocating for animals in Nevada as part of three bills in this year’s legislative session. She co-authored a piece in the Nevada Independent on the importance of Senate Bill 103 which aims to prohibit insurance companies from denying or discriminating in coverage based on a dog’s breed, aiming to build off Nevada’s past success to protect
people’s ability to keep the dogs they love.
In addition, Rebecca testified on behalf of other bills this session that impact animals in Nevada including AB209 which prohibits the removal or disabling of the claws of a cat under certain circumstances and A200 which revises provisions governing veterinary medicine. She also appeared on Nevada Newsmakers to talk about the importance of all three bills.
An Overview of the 3 Bills
Assembly Bill AB209
As it states on the legislative summary: “AN ACT relating to animals; prohibiting a person from removing or disabling the claws of a cat by performing certain procedures except if necessary to address the physical medical condition of the cat; prohibiting the removal or disabling of the claws of a cat for cosmetic, aesthetic or convenience reasons; imposing civil penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”
This would prevent the removal of a cats claws for cosmetic or convivence purposes, but would allow veterinarians to determine if the cat needs this surgery to correct an existing illness, disease, injury or something of the sort. It would impose civil penalties on those who performed the surgery or caused it to happen. This would increase with each offense.
Senate Bill SB103
“Prohibits certain insurers from discriminating based on the breed of dog at a property.”
This bill allows people to keep the dogs that they love, because they cannot be discriminated on based on purely breed. Breed restrictions lead to higher housing insecurity, as people will be denied for having a certain type of dog. There is no evidence to say that breeds that are commonly discriminated against, such as Rottweilers and Pit-bulls have any more dangerous bites than another breed of dog.
Assembly Bill AB200
Revises provisions governing veterinary medicine.
Bill SB103 passed which prevents discrimination based on certain breeds for insurers. This helps people from having to make the difficult choice to surrender their animal to a shelter due to housing challenges.
This helps with the issue of providers denying homeowner and renters insurance coverage and renewals, create policy exclusions, or placing limitations on coverage for households with specified breeds of dogs in their homes. This gives insurance companies the capability to determine these circumstances based on experience with a certain dog, but not based on its breed or its appearance of a breed.
What can you do next?
Educate yourself and your peers on why declawing is so inhumane to cats. Until the bill potentially comes to pass again, it is important to just educate yourself and those around you.
Why is declawing so bad?
Declawing, or toe amputation surgically removes the cats last joint, all the way up to their first knuckle. The equivalent of this would be like removing a person’s finger tip at the last knuckle. This changes the structure of the cat’s feet and leaves them having to learn to reuse their feet. Not to mention, learning to Re-Walk on this after amputation can have lasting effects on their personality as they might always be in pain.
To learn more about Why declawing is so inhumane, read our blog post on Aster.