A bill for an ordinance adding a new section 8-141 to Chapter 8 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on cats. Adds a new section 8-141 to Chapter 8 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on cats. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-25-17.
Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Dear again, direct your comments to members of Council as a whole and refrain from any personal attacks. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 709 on the floor? Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 709 be ordered published. It has been moved in second it. The public hearing for council bill 709 is open. May we have the staff report from Councilman Black? Is your night and Dr. Jenny Conrad and Dr. Avery. I'll let you introduce all your folks who were with you. Thank you. And since this is my bill, I'm going to give the staff report, along with two veterinary specialists. So, Councilwoman Black. Just one more thing. I don't mean to interrupt you. You're you're on a roll. I saw that. This is we're going to vote on this for publication tonight. This is first hearing. There's going to be another hearing next week. So I'm sorry, another another vote next week, not another hearing. So it will be the it will be the final vote next week. So I just want to make sure that's clear with everybody. This is just for publication. Will next week be Councilwoman Black's week as well? Yes, there were. Anyway. Thank you all for sitting here. I know you all got here early to sign in, but this is what we do on Monday nights, and this actually is going to be a short night some nights we're here till two in the morning. So before I start, if you are in favor of this, will you please stand up? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll just have a few brief remarks and then I'll invite you to say a few words before the public hearing. But I first learned about this from Dr. Lav Izzo, and I was shocked to learn about the horrible and unnecessary procedure that actually cuts off the tips of cats toes, causing them pain, often disabling them and resulting in other bad behaviors like biting. For many years it's been sold to cat owners as a simple way to prevent cats from scratching furniture. But owners haven't been told that the procedure actually cuts off the tips of the toes of cats. It's painful, it's cruel, and it's unnecessary. Yet it is legal. It's often disabling and does cause other bad behaviors like fighting and inability and unwillingness to use a litter box. And many cat owners who have cats that develop those habits actually are relinquished to shelters. But there are also humane ways to train cats so that they can stay in the home. And decline is not the solution. The federal government actually prohibits it for large cats and wild cats and nations and cities around the world have banned the procedure. And so why are we doing it here in Denver? Well, I think that until the veterinary community is willing to ban this cruel and inhumane procedure is up to us to do so. So with that, I'd like to invite Dr. Jenny Conrad up. She is a doctor of veterinary medicine and founder of the PAs project and she is the person who successfully got the federal government to ban cat decline in large and wild cats. And also Dr. Aubrey Lab Oso, who everyone knows, he's quite famous here in Denver. He's a community activist. He's been a veterinarian for more than four decades and has accomplished quite a lot and is very involved in the Denver community and is the current director of the Pop Park Project. Go ahead. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. And thank you, Mr. President, and council members, for allowing me to testify on this very important issue. My name is Jennifer Conrad. I'm a veterinarian, and I am the founder and director of the PAS Project. The PAS project is the world's largest nonprofit dedicated solely to ending declawing. Now, as you know, declawing does no good for a cat. It is the amputation of a cat's toe bones, just like the cigar cutter would amputate my fingers. It does not keep cats in their homes because they begin to have problems. They come home from the surgery. They go and dig in the litter box. It hurts. They will never use it again. They now have to resort to biting because they have no other mode of defense. We know that declawing a cat does not help human health. The National Hemophilia Federation Federation and the American Cancer Society do not condone declawing as a way to protect human health. But what we what I want to discuss with you is things that you might not know that declawing bans are a win, win win situation. Declawing bans are a win for cats. They're a win for communities. And they are actually a win for veterinarians. It's obvious why a declawing ban is a win for cats. Cats are allowed to keep their claws. They're more comfortable, they're more confident, and they do not have the risk of having a lifetime of being in pain from ten toe amputations. Declawing benefits communities because declawed cats are not flooding the shelters like you might hear from our opposition. In fact, the Park Project sponsored eight ordinances in the state of California, and in those eight ordinances, we banned declawing outright, with no exceptions, except for, of course, like your bill says, that if it's medically necessary for a cat in the case of like a tumor or something in the toe. But our experience in California was very interesting. We found that if we looked at the numbers of cats who were relinquished before the ban went into effect the five years before versus the five years after the ban went into existence, we found that there was a decrease in the number of cats relinquished. And in Los Angeles, which is a city of 4.2 million people. Very big city. We found that there was a decrease in the number of cats relinquished in the five years after the ban by 43.3%. That amounts to tens of thousands of cats lives saved by a declaw ban. We also found that the cat adoption rate went up twice in Los Angeles after the ban. With these two astounding facts that happened in Los Angeles. We can only surmise how many taxpayer dollars were saved. So again, declaw bans help communities. Now declaw bans also help veterinarians. Veterinarians, I'm sure you've heard, have always said that they're trying to talk everybody out of declawing. They're always saying, oh, we only we try and talk everyone out of it. We rarely do it. It's it's a last resort. Well, isn't the ultimate way to talk someone out of something say it's illegal? I can't. It's animal cruelty. So I think the declaw bans help veterinarians. We also surveyed veterinarians who have stopped declawing. And we have found that they across the board have said that they have a larger clientele because they're not declawing they have more loyal clientele because they're not declawing and that they've actually increased their revenues because they're not declawing. So declawing certainly helps declaw bands, certainly help veterinarians. When I started this campaign, it was 1999 and people told me, it takes 20 years to change the world. Are you committed to this? And I said, I am because I am a veterinarian. I went to school to protect cats, not to protect couches. I am now here in Denver 18 years later with pending legislation in the province of Nova Scotia, the state, the states of New York, New Jersey, West Virginia and Rhode Island all. Listening to what Denver does tonight, I. I'm very hopeful that veterinary medicine will change instead of being what we call compassionate veterinarians, because compassion has a wide berth. You can declaw a cat with compassion. You can kill an animal with compassion. But if we change veterinary medicine to be guided by empathy, I think that there's no question that declawing would be illegal. I like to paraphrase the great Martin Luther King when he said that the greatest happiness you will ever know is when you make someone else happy. And I like to apply that to animals. And I certainly hope that tonight we make a lot of animals very happy. And I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you. Thank you. Council President Brooks, it's nice to be here again, but let's get real. You really want to know how this started declining? It started actually went up when some sleazeball in a dogfighting cult cut off a cat's toes and tossed it into an enclosure so that it would beat the dog to fight more aggressively. That's how it started. Later in 1952, a veterinarian found out about it and a doctor Meisner wrote an article and submitted it to the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, saying that declawing is a simple and practical way to protect fine furniture. That's how it started. So that's where the AVMA is sorted. Sort sordid history began with mutilating cats. Now, now, some 65 years later, 19 million cats in the U.S. or declawed by 21% of veterinarians, 95% of whom still do it to to protect furniture. But you know what? Think of all the countless millions of furniture that's now projected and all the stuff cats we now have that we can put on those that furniture, because declawed cats are not real cats. They're ornaments. You know, a couple of weeks ago when we did, we're in safe house. Well, Councilman Cashman, Safe House Committee, the Colorado Very Medical Association, said, you know, we are against. We are against declawing. But, you know, we don't like regulation. You know, you guys just leave us alone. We take care of it. But you know what that means. Everybody up here kind of vacate. We don't need you know, you can't someone we don't need you because your regulators, we don't need that. You know, we might as well do, too. Let's repeal the Civil Rights Act. Let's repeal the Immigration Act. Let's repeal the Child Safety Act. Let's repeal violence against women because we don't need regulation while we're at it. While we're at it. Let's go on and decriminalize dogfighting, too, because now, you know, every if we if we decriminalize dogfighting, then, you know, we really don't need to worry about mutilating little cats because anybody can do it. But whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. That gets into my pocketbook. Let's CPMs pocketbook. So maybe that's not such a good idea. Thank you. Okay. So we're going to have public comment next. And I think we have 15 speakers. And if you if you have something to say that someone else has said. Keep your comments brief. You don't need to say the same thing over. We've already had public comment at our committee meeting, so we ask you to please keep it brief. And with that. Great. So I'll call the first five speakers up. We're going to need this front row for all of the speakers. So I'm sorry, but you'll have to find some space over here. We have some space over there. I'm going to call the first five speakers up, and the first speaker is Debbie Ortega. I saw you're okay. You didn't look great. I was going to be like, wow, this is a first. Okay, first speaker Gina matera, chairman say COO Jean. Hmm. HOVEY Okay. Thank you. Rhymes with Van Jovi. Okay. Jean Hovey. Dr. Andre and Jen West. Dean Yes. Yep. That's great. Okay. We'll have, uh, Gino Metro golfers. Good evening. My name is Gina montero. I live at 80 West Cedar Avenue in Denver and I'm speaking in support of the ban or the bill to ban declawing in Denver. Dr. Llamas, though, has cared for my pets for almost 30 years and he declawed one of my cats. She may have been the last cat that he declawed before he instituted a ban in his clinic. At the time, I thought Dr. Lorenzo and I were making a decision for a routine procedure, but I didn't know the true extent. Of the harm that was in store for you. I didn't fully. Appreciate the procedure or understand that decline was an amputation. I grew up with cats and had never declawed a cat before, but I knew people who had and I didn't see the true damage that it caused. When I picked you up at the clinic that day and saw her bloodied, bandaged paws. I immediately regretted the decision. When a bruised paws didn't heal well, bled for several days and she. Never fully. Recovered. She avoided putting weight on it and she never walked the same again. Her personality changed, too. She became less playful, endless social. I vowed that I would never decline another cat. Boo died six years ago. But I'm still haunted by my decision to mutilate the paws of my sweet, healthy cat. And she lived the last ten years of her life in obvious pain. I'm currently caring for a rescue cat that has had all ten of her claws removed. She's completely defenseless and she can't scratch herself. She was surrendered to a rescue because of behavioral problems. And she does require more care than cats that I've had who haven't had their claws removed. Thank you for your time and allowing me to speak. Thank you. All right, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name. Is Chairman. Sekou. I'm the. Organizer, founder for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor and homeless people. You know, this, it seems like on the surface is a very simple thing. Because nobody really wants to decapitate cats. Unless you're in the business of decapitation. And then, of course, you make money and then. You know, there's there's a whole. Myriad of stuff in the medical community of giving. People operations. They don't need to know about it. So it's not unusual that this would happen. And. There is a caveat in this thing. Now you have senior citizens who have animals who they can't necessarily take care of because of their fixed income. So the costs of maintenance of these pets are prohibitive for them to have lifetime pets around. And so. Many times. When these cats or. These animals are taken from them, it has a. Deplete. It has a killing influence on the senior citizen because now this is their best friend. This is the one that makes them. Feel good when nobody else will. This is the one that's around when nobody else is coming around, including their own families. So we're in this. Do we have room where poor people on fixed income will get the opportunity to have the necessary resources to do the maintenance on these comfort animals that they have that they can't afford. That they can't afford. So and so. I'm sitting listening to folks about this. And. I would hope that as we go about this process of making a decision about this thing, that something in this bill because I know you guys are going to pass it. You're going to do that because it wouldn't have got to the floor if you didn't have the votes already. So somewhere in this, there has to be a provision for people who are on fixed income, who have to who have to maintain these pets to provide. A service for them, for these comfort animals that they are certified. Would have and will have the opportunity to hold on to these animals. So that their life is not impacted. Because when it comes down to folks, I mean, I. Represent senior citizens. I don't. Represent cats. I don't. But they have a very important role in the life of the people that I represent. So consider that as you go about doing your deliberations, and I'll just tell you straight up, I'm diametrically opposed to the mutilation of any animal. Period. Because that's anti-human. And we can do better. Than that. That's all I got. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sekou. Jean Harvey. Hi. Good news for the chairman. Declawed cats tend to have more health problems as they age, so senior citizens will do better with cats that have their claws. A recent study published just this year. Is State your name for this? Oh, sorry. Yeah. Jean Hovey. Yeah, I'm a doctor of veterinary medicine. I live on South Williams at the Harvard Gulch bike trail. There's been a lack of recognition and a refusal to recognize the long term side effects of decline. Veterinarians don't understand or don't want to see that these cats are debilitated some months, sometimes years later, and they don't attribute that arthritis or that sudden decision to start biting or that failure to use the litter box that crops up five or ten years later. They don't associate that with decline, but in fact, that is part of the problem. A study just published in March found that declawed cats are three times more likely to have back pain, seven times more likely to house soil, which is the polite term for peeing and pooping outside the litter box. Four and a half times more likely to bite, three times more likely to be aggressive and three times more likely to barber, which is pull their hair out due to stress. So some personal research I did in addition to the surveys in California, specifically declawed cats in shelters, the percentage went down following declaw bans. And one thing that was very interesting was that the percentage of cats declawed cats in shelters was by far disproportionately older, showing that these cats don't develop these problems right away. But years later, that's when they get dumped because somebody that was not tolerant of claws is going to be less tolerant of peeing on the carpet. So I hope you guys understand that there is no reason to declare cat that are. There are more than a dozen humane alternatives. There's no excuse for this mutilation any more just because people don't want to bother to train their cats. We need to have some responsibility. And the veterinary profession has failed miserably in policing itself. And, you know, they can say, oh, we don't think you should do it. Well, there's no enforcement power there. You guys have the enforcement power. Thank you very much. Thank you. If you if you all could hold your applause just so we can get through. I do appreciate I know there's some good testimony up here, but just if you could do it, that'd be great. Dr. Andre. Andrea. My name is Dr. César Andre. Hard one to say. Good evening. I'm a veterinarian. I have ten years experience as an officer in the Army Veterinary Corps. I'm now an active and owns several veterinary businesses in Colorado. As a practicing veterinarian, I absolutely oppose the routine decline of cats. But I am also in strong opposition of the proposed ordinance. I considered a privilege to stand in this room with probably everyone who is in support of welfare of animals. However, my concern would be the unintended consequences if this proposed ordinance was passed. My experience tells me that veterinary medical decisions are as complex as any may between a human physician and their patient. A veterinarian acts as the advocate for the welfare of both the animal and the animal's human family. Similar to many other veterinary medical decisions, a decision to declare a cat is affected by many human and animal factors . The well-being of the animal and their human family is best defended by providing owners with education about alternatives to decline, appropriate training for friendly cats, and well-informed discussions between that pet owner and their veterinary medicine provider. When adequate procedures medically and ethically appropriate, the use of modern surgery, surgical techniques, advanced equipment and effective pain management as utilized in all other veterinary surgical procedures can ensure that a declawed procedure has the best possible outcome. Not only does this best possible outcome scenario include a successful procedure and a pain free animal, but also a cat that is able to remain with their family and continue to develop and enjoy a unique human animal bond. The proposed ordinance oversimplifies complex decision making, hinders my ability as a veterinarian to counsel and educate my clients, and forcibly obscures the holistic view on which my medical practice is centered. The number of de claws performed by veterinarians is declining as we are able to provide education and guidance on alternatives. While I applaud the desire to protect the welfare of animals, the measure does might do the opposite. It attempts to replace sound veterinary medical advice within the context of a veterinary client patient relationship with legislation, while at the same time removing the right of an individual pet owner to choose the appropriate medical treatment for their animal. The right of the individual to make a medical decision, no matter how difficult within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and their patient, is one that is crucially important. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Andre Ginn Western. Good evening. My name is Jen Weston and I live in Denver. I'm at 4740 Willow and I live in Stapleton. I am also a certified veterinary technician, and I have been I am also one of the owners of Northfield Veterinary Hospital in Stapleton as well. I am not a vet. I did not go to vet school, but I have been working in this field for about 18 years come January and I have been in almost every single aspect in a veterinary hospital other than being an actual bat. More importantly, I actually own a declawed cat who is 23 years old and she was declawed 22 years ago when it was just a normal standard. You took your cat to the vet? Most of my parents did, and my cat was spayed and declawed at that time. She's 23 years old now and she has pretty significant arthritis, probably something that will eventually be a cause for euthanasia for her. I also have a two and a half year old daughter, and every single time my daughter touches my cat's front feet. SCHWEITZER Because I think that it is probably a source of pain for her. When I was 16 years old and working in a veterinary hospital, my veterinarian at the time handed me a pair of nail trimmers and instructed me on how to declaw cats. And you honor them as well. Again, I was not a vet, did not go to vet school, but probably in my time, in my three years there, I probably declawed over 100 cats. And that is something that I live with to this day, knowing that I perform the surgery in accurately and probably caused a lifelong of pain to these cats. So my my experience and working in veterinary hospitals in Denver in the last ten years. So I do agree that veterinary declines have decreased. However, I don't always feel that that education is there. I think veterinarians are very compassionate people, and by nature they are very much into people pleasing and providing great quality of care to the owners and to the pet as well. And sometimes I think that we are they are either bullied into doing the declaw against probably their own wishes or do it sometimes even for income reasons as well. So I urge you guys to support thespian as well. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Weston. All right, I'm going to call the next five. So, you up here. Thank you so much for your testimony. Will French, Saraswati, Kirsten Butler, Andy Nigro and Dr. Robin Downing. Will French. You're up first. Good evening. My name is Dr. Will French Address is 191 Yuma Street. I'm a veterinarian and the president of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. CVM opposes the decline of cats, but we also oppose the proposed ordinance. Some of the unsubstantiated state statements that were made, particularly in committee by Dr. Lav, is that while they may make make a dramatic point, are simply inaccurate. One of the studies that he references actually points out that the majority of veterinarians do not perform death claws via the guillotine method, but in fact uses scalpel blade, which has much more satisfactory outcomes compared to those illustrated by Dr. in presentation. Additionally, when asked about complication rates, specifically long term chronic lameness veterinarians report that fewer than 1% of doctors have those complications. I appreciate the council members comments at the Safe House Committee regarding that. A fundamental function of government is the regulation of professions that can't regulate themselves. In response to that statement. It is important to be aware that the veterinary profession is indeed regulated by the Colorado Board of Veterinary Medicine under the Department of Regulatory Affairs. The State Board of Veterinary Medicine is a seven member board of veterinarians and public members that licenses veterinarians, investigate complaints about the practice of veterinary medicine, disciplines, violators of the law and or board rules, and makes rules and regulations that govern the conduct of veterinarians. And it is also important to know that the veterinary profession is already effectively shifting practice by educating its constituents about declawing cats. The number of d claws and doctors performing d claws is rightly dramatically declining. Another fundamental purpose of government is to protect, protect and preserve individual rights and the right of an individual to make a medical decision, no matter how ethically difficult within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and their patient is crucially important. If Dr. Lorenzo would like to identify and present to the State Board cases of D clause that were performed without adequate pain, control or surgical technique, I would gladly stand with him in front of that group to testify as to the pain and suffering placed on those animals. If the project would like to collaborate on an educational campaign to for landlords about the problematic nature of requiring residents to have declawed their their cats, the CVM would gladly engage in such efforts. Decline is an extremely complex issue and a blanket ban is simply bad policy that will fail to bring about desired change. Changing hearts and minds about this issue is admittedly harder work, but it is sounder policy and a path that we are committed to not simply banning it in Denver alone, which may have unforeseen consequences contrary to the welfare of cats. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms.. French. Sarah, sweetie. Good evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Sarah Swann, and I live in Fort Collins. I am the co-founder and executive director of Fort Collins Cat Rescue and Spay Neuter Clinic. A certified animal welfare administrator, a retired veterinary technician, and a lifelong lover and protector of animals. I am giving comment today in support of Councilwoman Black's bill to prohibit declawing of cats, or, as we refer to it, amputation of toes. My first experience with decline was at the age of approximately nine years old, when my parents had our family cat declawed as a convenience. Immediately upon my cats return home, I knew that something terrible had happened to her. Sadly, I had many more experiences with declawing and the nine years that I worked in veterinary hospitals as a veterinary technician, one of my jobs was to assist during declawing procedures and to provide care for the cats post-surgery. I witnessed pain, confusion and suffering from every cat that had this cruel procedure done. As the co-founder and executive director of Fort Collins Cat Rescue and Spay Neuter Clinic. I made the decision early in the organization's life to require adopters to sign a contract stating that they will not declaw their adopted cat. Despite this, we have no trouble trouble adopting out nearly 2500 cats and kittens annually. Even more importantly, I'm aware of only a single cat. Of the more than 14,000 we have adopted out over the last 11 and a half years ever being returned to our shelter because the owner didn't have the option of declawing opposition to the ban will lead you to believe that decline keeps cats in homes when in fact data shows the opposite is true. The cruel procedure of decline is done at the convenience of pet owners and at great risk to the cats. Decline does not keep cats in homes. There is a famous quote that states the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way that its animals are treated. You have an opportunity to improve the treatment of animals, to alleviate unnecessary suffering. To be the first city in Colorado. To prove that the lives of companion animal cats are not just important but protected. I urge you to pass Councilwoman Black's bill. Thank you. Thank you, sweetie. All right. And thank you guys for holding your floss and some of you slipped. Okay. Kirsten Butler. Good evening, counsel, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight about a declawing ban in our city. My name is Kirsten Butler and I am a certified veterinary technician here in Denver. And the simplest terms, I provide nursing care to your furry family members. In regards to surgery, I do not performance. That is the job of a veterinarian. But it is my job to prepare patients for surgery, keep them alive and manage their pain during surgery by monitoring anesthesia and care for them as they recover. Having run anesthesia on declawed procedures, I can tell you it is an awkward and disheartening feeling to keep something alive while is mutilated in front of you. The post-operative care is equally as awkward, placing compression bandages on bloody paws and then apologetically replacing those blood soaked bandages as they will inevitably be shaken off by the patient who is painful and dysphoric, having woken up missing a third of the digits they want to sleep with. I did my job. Those patients survived. But a little piece of me died on those days, and I chose to no longer participate in this procedure. As veterinarians do, I, too, took an oath upon completing my education, and I, too, am expected to adhere to a strict code of medical ethics in regards to my patients. Part of that code of ethics is to alleviate the suffering of animals. And following this code in regards to declaw procedures, I have risked insubordination and have limited my job opportunities by choosing to no longer work for practices that condone this unnecessary and painful surgery. We are here today because as veterinary professionals, we have failed. Surgery may seem like a quick fix when weighed against the time it takes to have conversations and discussions with our clients about anatomy, behavior modification, medications and pheromones, impregnated products and the overwhelming ness of the everyday. We forget sometimes who we actually work for. First and foremost, our job is to advocate for those who cannot speak. Our patients, no piece of furniture is worth taking away an animal's ability to ambulate normally, just as you would not cut off your child's fingers for drawing on the walls. In closing, I ask, is it really enhancing your relationship with your pet or is it really saving the life of the patient if all you are doing is condemning it to a life of pain? Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Ms.. Butler. Okay. Andy Nigro. My name is Dr. Andy Negro. I'm a veterinarian, have been practicing in the. Central Denver area for about. 13 years. My address is 3214 West 26th Avenue. First of all, I would also like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm excited that this issue of a declaw ban is being discussed and getting his due attention. In thinking about how best to voice my opinion, I chose to point out the simplest and most basic issues. How does the declawing procedure affect cats? While some will attempt to suggest that does not. I would challenge you to think about the basic nature of cats. If you have a cat at home, this may be an easier thing to understand. If not, please go online and youtube cats playing. Every single one of these videos that you will see will involve cats batting or grabbing. Toys. Pouncing, climbing, kneading. The point is this cat's paws and claws are truly the essence of who they are as animals. I will argue that a reasonable analogy would be a dog as to licking, chewing and playing fetch as a cat is to climbing, kneading and scratching. To put a medical perspective on this. Cats are digital grade, meaning that they walk on their toes. So essentially like this, where other species like humans are plant degrade, so they'll kind of do a heel strike. The bottom line is, is that by taking away the ends of their toes, we are affecting them and they were affecting them so much more than most realize. Those in opposition to the ban suggest that this procedure is a medical decision that should be left to the veterinarian and client. I'm proposing that this is not a medical decision. Is a discussion regarding issues of convenience to me a medical decision? That involves surgery. Must address a medical problem. As it relates to this issue. There is no medical problem here. I'll leave you with this. Why is it reasonable for us to remove the ends of cat's toes? Imagine starting to consider this practice in this day and age. It would be ridiculous conversation that would be shot down immediately as cruel and unusual. This is something that somewhere along the way somehow became acceptable. We have the opportunity to question this. Thanks so much. Thank you, Dr. Negro. All right, last in this group, this is Dr. Robin Downey. Good evening and thank you all very much for this opportunity. I'm Dr. Robin Downing. I practice in Windsor, 415 Main Street in Windsor. I'm an internationally known pain management expert. I'm a board certified specialist in physical therapy for animals, and I'm a clinical bioethicist. And this issue of ten toe amputation in cats needs to be assessed from all three of these perspectives pain, biomechanics and bioethics. Pain. When we perform a ten toe amputation in cats, we cut nerves. And there is no way that any veterinarian can assert credibly that they can eliminate all the pain of a ten toe amputation at the time of surgery. But more importantly, because we cut those nerves, we have the opportunity for those cut nerves to develop a condition that in humans is called neuropathic pain. This is a perpetual, self-sustaining pain phenomenon. Humans with neuropathic pain will tell you that every step is torture, and even when they're not on their feet, their pain can be excruciating. Biomechanics. When we perform a ten toe amputation, we're not just removing a piece of bone. We're cutting ligaments, tendons and all the attendant structures. At the end of the toes, this alters the architecture of the feet forever and changes the biomechanics of the front limbs. When we change the biomechanics of the front limbs, we actually change the biomechanics of every single joint from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail. Bioethics. There are four foundational principles in clinical bioethics respect for autonomy, non maleficent's, beneficence and justice. Respect for autonomy means honoring the preferences of the individual. I would argue that no CAT would have a preference to have ten to amputation. None Maleficent's means do no harm. It is inconceivable to try to argue that a ten tone amputation does not cause harm. Beneficence means acting in the patient's best interest. Again, indefensible to argue that it's in any cat's best interest to have attend to amputation. And justice, as applied in veterinary medicine, really reflects fairness. I would ask, is it ever fair for us to perform a ten toe amputation in a cat? My respectful answer is, I think, a self-evident no. We need to remember what the Buddhists say. While pain is inevitable, suffering is optional, and you all are now in a unique position to prevent unnecessary suffering. By banning this barbaric and arcane mutilation procedure. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Downing. Okay. All right. Well, we're getting there. We're getting there. We'll let you clap at the end when we vote. Okay. The last five. Thank you all for being up here. I'm going to bring the last five up here. Uh, Reverend Roland Halpern, Erica Rambus. Lynn Decker the second. Lisa martin. And Senator Hamlin. All right. Okay, Reverend. Good evening, President Brooks. Distinguished members, thank you for having me here this evening. My name is Roland Halpern. I live in Denver, Colorado. I'm an ordained animal chaplain and a member of the Association of Professional Chaplains. I serve as the Colorado Faith Outreach Volunteer Leader for the Humane Society of the United States. I am on the board of the Colorado Voters for Animals, and I also serve on the board of the Colorado Council of Churches. We've heard a little bit of about ethics this evening, but I want to talk a little bit about morals. Genesis 125 reminds us that on the sixth day, God created the animals of the Earth, even before He created man. And God saw that it was good. And Genesis 131 reminds us that when God look back on all he created, he saw that it was very good. God gave man hands just as he gave cats claws. It was very good. And it is for a purpose. By unnecessarily declaring a cat. Are we saying God got it wrong that he didn't know what he was doing? As far as I'm concerned, if someone places their couch, their curtains or other material things above that which was created by the divine, then maybe they just shouldn't have a cat in the first place. Defiling God's creation because we might perceive it as a nuisance is simply wrong. Not one sparrow falls that goes unnoticed by God. And an injury to any of God's creatures is also felt by him. We were reminded that is the merciful that will receive mercy. And I hope in making your decision on this, that you are merciful for our feline friends. Thank you. Thank you, Reverend. Erica Rambis. Good evening. My name is Dr. Erica Rambus. I am the medical. Director at the Feline Fix 2600 West First App, or I'm sorry, West Second Avenue in Denver. And I have been practicing veterinary medicine in Denver for over 20 years. As veterinarians, we take an oath. And this oath includes the words to protect animal health and to prevent and relieve animal suffering. I find it hard to believe that. Any veterinarian who is amputating the distal toes of their feline patients. Is fulfilling and honoring this oath. I had very. Much hope that my colleagues would step up to the plate and do the right thing for these. Animals without the need for legislation. But that's not what's happened. Or how much more time did we give them to do the right thing? And more importantly, how much more suffering has to take place before. We as a profession and. We as a society stand up and say enough is enough. Are most of the public. Knows by now that this procedure is wrong? They know it's. Cruel, and those that don't yet know are looking to their veterinarians for guidance. Veterinarians should be. Leading the way when it comes to animal protection, not following behind and certainly not opposing it. The time is right for this legislation. The time is now to please end this barbaric procedure in our city once. And for all. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Rambis. All right. I think this is Win Win Decker. I'm missing the first little bit. Good evening, council members. My name is Command Sergeant. Major Mike Autumn Bin Decker the second. I am with the ninth Brigade Station and Suleimani, Iraq. I lost one of my toes in combat against the Islamic State. I was a volunteer. Every day I suffer in excruciating pain with my loss of my big toe. When I came back from my last tour, I returned back home and from a village called Abu Mohammed. When I returned from that village, I came with my small cat, a ginger cat by the name of Abu. He is now an American. He loves pork and he loves tearing up my house. I'm a career military man. I love this cat with all my heart. I will kill for this cat. I almost died for this cat. That's how I lost my toe. The thing I can tell you is to declaw cat. To remove a part of their body is mutilation. I see in the Islamic State mutilate innocent women, children, homosexuals, animals. And it is wrong. The same applies to our animals, our friends. Boo is my son. I love him. He is an American and he raises hell. But he is my child. And for you to sit there and not to stop this butcher ism would be a travesty to us in Iraq. Zero. Zero cats are declawed. As my journal once said, the Prophet Muhammad said, to file an animal is considered a blasphemy against Allah himself. This is a muslim in Iraq where they have total disregard for animals. Everybody knows about Iraqi police dogs and Iraqi alley cats. But we as American citizens who are free and have the right to fight for those that are persecuted and killed. But we stand back and we allow innocent cats to be mutilated. This is wrong. I can understand doing it for medical purposes such as a tumor. Or possibly they got ran over. I could accept that. But because you have a couch, you have curtains. I have a flag for the president of the United States. Abu climbs up it every day. I have no problem with that, because my love for him is more greater than the love for myself. So the fact I tell you is to please make sure to pass this ban, because the fact is, Abu, who has traveled 11,000 miles, depends on you as a new American for you to protect him. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your service. All right. Lisa martin. Hi. My name is Lisa martin. I'm from Golden, Colorado, and I have been involved in Cat Rescue and fostering special needs cats for 18 years. Currently, with every creature counts and work of Fort Lupton, Colorado, in the past year I have fostered about 15 declawed cats, and these cats have been already surrendered to the shelter. We got them from at least once and by the time I get them to foster them, they've been surrendered at least once or twice. When I bring them into my homes, I find that they have chronic pain. I have a cat right now that can't put her right front foot down and she's on pain meds all her life. The other issue that I see with the cats because of the pain is they don't walk very much, so they're very sedentary. They just walk from their bed to their food bowl. They end up obese, they end up with diabetes. They can't clean their rear end. So a lot of cats end up with infections that we can't clear up. And it's pretty disgusting and they're very hard to get adopted. The other thing that I see with these cats is they feel very vulnerable and very defenseless without their claws. When they're in homes with little kids and other pets, they tend to bite, they tend to hide, they tend to become very scared and skittish. It's very hard to find them homes because they need a very quiet home where they feel very comfortable and they don't have to worry about feeling defenseless. The last thing that I see with just about every single declawed cat that I have fostered in 18 years is litterbox issues. It's painful to dig in the litter box. A lot of them have aversion from when they were first declawed. It's very hard to get them to start learning to use the litter box. I have to retrain them. We tried different litters, we tried different litter boxes. We tried potty pads. Oftentimes we can't find a solution. So these cats are next to impossible to get homes for. So people like me end up with these cats. So I. I hope that this. Does not I hope that this will be the ban will be. I'm sorry. I'm hoping that the ban will be go forward because it's so hard to find these declawed cats homes because they are pretty much unadoptable by the time we get them. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Martin. All right, Santa. How much? Good evening, council members. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Snow Hamlin. I owned and Record Company, which is a Cat Cafe located at 3929 Tennyson Street. We foster cats who are up for adoption and we're in the business of providing a joyful experience to the people of Denver and of Colorado as far as the relationship with Cats goes. As the only Cat Cafe in Colorado, we have served over 25,000 people this year alone from all over the state and have helped facilitate the adoptions of over 400 cats. Based on my experience with working with rescue cats and our customers. I have three main observations to share with you. Number one is our customers are often surprised to learn that declawing is painful for cats and can lead to negative behaviors. This is because the practice has been normalized in the mind of the public, and many vets do not provide full disclosure to their clients or discuss humane alternative options with them. Once customers learn, the full extent of the damage, decline can do often from me and from our partnering rescues. They no longer are interested in declawing their cats. We would not need this amendment if all vets were upfront about the negative consequences of decline. But unfortunately, this is not the case. Number two, and related to my first point about education, I strongly believe that it will abandon Denver bill, even if it does not prevent all declawing in Colorado will serve as a strong signal to uninformed cat lovers that this is a cruel and unnecessary procedure and it will lead to better informed decisions in other Colorado cities. Third, and most important, cats who have suffered the pain and trauma of being declawed are not happy cats. We have hosted such cats at the cafe. They have trouble adjusting to human interaction. They often end up leaving because they bite. They have a harder time finding new homes. Declawing a cat not only does not keep a cat in a home, it does a permanent disservice to the cats chances of being accepted as a desirable pet for the remainder of its life. I urge you to vote in favor of this anti-growth amendment to protect our furry companions who give us so much love and joy so they can continue to do do so. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Ms.. This concludes our speakers. Thank you all. You can head back to your seats. All right. We'll head into the question portion of our our public hearing. Councilman Herndon, you're up. Mr. President, I got a handful of questions. Dr. Conrad, if you mind. Coming up, Aubrey, you could come up. To. The College of Veterinary Medicines. CVM I think we had two doctor speak either one I'm fine with do we and Councilman Black do you have any idea how many or maybe this might be for Alice, how many declines in Denver that we perform annually? Do we or anyone do we believe it's a lot? Do we believe it's a little? Any idea? Are there any way do we have. That's a good question, unfortunately, because it's gotten such a stigma. Now, Councilman Herndon, there is don't acknowledge that information if you ask. It was a survey that was done just a couple of years ago by the Colorado Veterans Medical Association. In a survey was a subjective survey. It asked, do you do decals anymore? Well, not many. So we have no idea. And we're not going to be able to get into those practices to find out those records. We don't know. Okay. In our recent year there, this was a I admire your passion, but I heard you keep saying we do this out of convenience. I had a conversation with a cat owner who said a cat scratched my baby. And so I had the cat declawed. So I don't I don't believe that that particular instance was out of convenience. Is that a safety? So what would you tell that that cat owner who was concerned about the safety of their baby and they felt that decline or or getting rid of the cat would be the only two options that they would have. Well, I would say, first of all, it's not the only two options. There are humane alternatives. There are vinyl claw caps that you can place on the cat. You can train the cat. But more importantly, I would tell you that it is well documented that declawed cats bite more because they've been robbed of their primary defense. So in a sense, by declawing, you're actually giving that mother a false sense of security because now she's jeopardizing her child to be bitten. So I don't think that it's the right answer. And remember that declawing is illegal or considered unethical and most of the rest of the world and there are babies, there are grandmas with thin skin, there are people with HIV, there are people on Coumadin, and they're living with cats with claws. So I think that it that it's not a matter of declaw or get rid of the cat, it's a matter of declaw or humane alternatives to declaw and keep the cat. Okay. And from that, I will just say that that particular incident, the cat didn't bite the baby afterwards. But I admire I appreciate your opinion on that. I'm curious when these laws so how does. So if if adoption rates because we were having conversations about cats being adopted out that are declawed. But if you've gone to cities where we've made decline illegal, has there been an increase of cats being adopted out because now home owners feel that they don't have an option? Am I making sense? Like, do abandonment rates go up? Because now in L.A. County, I can't declaw my cat. I don't have the time ability to train it. So instead, I'm just going to take it to a shelter. Is that. The question? I understand your question, but the actual facts are the exact opposite. If we passed declawing bans in eight cities in California and five of those cities have their own municipal shelters, so we were able to get the numbers of CAT relinquished relinquishment in the five years before the ban versus the five years after the ban . And what we found is that every single city had a decrease in the number of relinquishment and actually an increase in the number of adoptions. So this this threat that you hear from the opposition that there will be this massive deluge of cats if you can't declaw. That didn't happen. There is no there is no proof of that. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Opposite. And as I said in Los Angeles, which is is a city that has almost the same population of all of Colorado, we found 43.3% of cats, a decrease in the number of cat relinquishes, 43.3%. That translates to tens of thousands of cat lives saved by declaw bans. And the head of Los Angeles Animal Services is a woman named Brenda Barnett. And she attributes the lack of I mean, the decrease in cats being relinquished to the declaw ban saying now she's not seeing the cats relinquished for not using the box or for biting. So declawed bans absolutely help cats and they help communities and ultimately they help vets vet. Things are coming. And I normally write down everyone's names and I did not do this as this. Conversations were so fascinating. So I apologize. So if you want to kind of if you want to rebut to that, that's how you raise your hand. And I had one more question for you. Thank you, Dr. Will French. So a couple of thoughts on the relinquishment, relinquishment numbers. I applaud those cities for the decrease in relinquishment, but I would say that we don't always know that correlation equals causation. So just because relinquishment were decreased in those cities, what we don't know is what happened to relinquishment in other cities. Right? If people just sort out declare because in the town next door and thanks to the wonderful efforts of many animal welfare organizations, really hopefully relinquishment are going down. So it the declaw ban was not the only decision made in those five years in a vacuum. So it's a little bit more complicated than that this year. And I want to give you a if you could speak a little bit more, because my familiarity was with the the tendons that other people were saying. But when you spoke, you talked about another procedure. And I just wanted to give you that opportunity, speak to that, because I was not familiar with that. So I'll try and answer the question to the best of my ability. But there there are a number of different methods to perform a declaw, and some are of appropriate surgical technique and some are not. One of the methods that was referenced is the guillotine method, where you cut it, cut to cut it all off, sort of like a quick amputation, like a someone's beheaded. Basically that that's not the most frequently used surgical technique reported by veterinarians. In fact, a scalpel is. So just wanted to set that straight was the point of that. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Hurd in my screen, are you next? Councilman Clark, your next. Thank you, Mr. President. Dr. French, if you'd come back up. I don't think it's any surprise where I am on this issue. I brought my cat to committee, and I'm wearing pen. So I apologize for that. But I. Am trying to. Understand why you guys as an organization are against it. So and correct me if I'm wrong, but you. Started your statement by saying that you are opposed to declawing, but you're also opposed to this legislation. Yes, sir. Why are you opposed to decline? I would agree with many of the statements made that as a as a routine procedure done out of, you know, pure practicality for the owner, I would be ethically opposed to that. Absolutely. I do not think that and I think the organization thinks that declaw should not be performed on a routine basis. However, we also don't think that a ban in Denver City Council is the correct way to go about enforcing. Okay. So you think it it. Shouldn't be allowed for routine? Do you guys have to get kicked out of your organization for doing that? You have any regulations against that? So we're a professional membership organization, but the State Board of Veterinary Medicine has the opportunity to regulate standards of care and that sort of thing. And do they? Do they do? Does anyone get punished for any declawing, even routine? Somebody comes in and just says, I want to protect my curtains, take my cat's claws off. Does anybody regulate that? That that's where the education component comes in. But does anybody regulate it? Not to my knowledge. Okay. You had also mentioned that there are certain ways like the guillotine. Guillotine. I don't know how you say the word method that are not as effective are frowned upon. Do you. Guys does anyone regulate and say you can't. Do that? What we do. Is there is someone allowed to do that today in the state of Colorado. So the state board of Veterinary Medicine, hypothetically, would be allowed to do that if it would do that today, if it were deemed to be not standard of care. And I don't believe that that question has been put in front of them. To the best of my knowledge, it may have been, but I don't know. But you guys are against that. Just not against it. Enough to tell people not to do it. I didn't sit. With you again. You started the first statement out of your mouth was, we are opposed to decline. And then you said, hey, this method is not good compared to the. Scalpel method or whatever. So you're against it, but not against it enough to tell anyone not to do it. With regards to the particular method, I believe what I said was it was more accurate to say that more veterinarians use the scalpel. We don't have any scientific peer review studies that look at method two method, and so people may look at the guillotine method and say it causes more pain, but we don't know that from a study. Placebo control. What other procedures are done on any animals. That are akin to declawing in cats that you guys also are opposed to, but no one is regulating and saying you can't do it. I'm not aware of any of word. So my wife drives my wife crazy. We have a kitten and the kitten hasn't quite learned not to jump up on the table when we're eating. Drives her crazy. If there was a veterinarian. Who told my wife I could amputate both. Back legs and your cat wouldn't be able to jump up on the. Table. Would you guys. Be opposed to government stepping in to say. That's not okay? Or would you guys be opposed but still. Not want to tell anyone not to. Do it? I'm trying. I don't mean to be ridiculous. But I'm failing to. See. This distinction between I'm opposed to it. We are opposed to it as an organization. But but we're not stepping. In where you could step in or where the state board could step in to prevent it from happening. And I don't want government to do that. And I will agree. With Councilwoman Kenney. She was not here in what she said in committee, that it is government's role that if a doctor started saying we're going to cut off the back legs of a cat or somebody use the analogy my kids drawn on my walls and I just painted it. So bind their hands that they can't do that. Government does have a role to step in and say, you could. Be regulating yourself, but you're. Not. And so on. I guess I'm trying to see why this isn't, from your perspective, an instance that is in desperate need of that. I would agree with Dr. Downie in that there are many different facets to bioethics and this is this is a complicated issue. I think that there are parallels that can be drawn to the abortion argument, unfortunately. It's a difficult decision that has to be made within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and a patient. And the highest court has said that it's hard and and that rightly belongs there. We are for that choice to be made a choice to be made between the doctor and a patient. I'd say the rest of the comments. Thank you very much. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Dr. Downing, could you come up here just for a second? Thank you. Thank you. Clarke, I just want to say thank you. That was excellent. Yes, sir. From the standpoint of bioethics, what would be your view on spaying and neutering and the consequences of that as well? Well, we have actually solid medical evidence that lets us know that removing the gonads, the ovaries and the testicles have positive medical benefits down the road. For instance, when we remove the ovaries of cats fairly early in life, we actually have a very robust science that lets us know we dramatically reduce the risk for ovarian excuse me , mammary cancer in those cats. Mammary cancer in cats behaves biologically different than it does in dogs. In dogs, it's a less aggressive disease. In cats, it's an extremely aggressive malignancy. So reducing the risk. Excellent choice. As far as removing testicles, we have, again, evidence that lets us know that we reduce behavior issues in speaking specifically of cats , of reducing some of the sex hormone related behaviors, like marking behaviors with urine, those kinds of behaviors. So from both a scientific and a bioethical perspective, this these are procedures that actually enhance health and allow for a longer life expectancy. In addition, we have data that lets us know that intact animals, these are animals with their opponents of reason. Testicles tend to have a much shorter life expectancy than animals that have had their gonads removed. So we not only enhance their life quality, but we actually enhance their longevity. Mm hmm. Okay, so you just you see, there's no parallel between. There actually is. And that's the straw man argument. There is absolutely no parallel between toe amputation and removing the gonads. Okay. Excellent question. Though. Thank you. Because a lot of times are done in conjunction with. I understand that I'm. I was thinking about. It. I think it's appropriate for the council to know that I've been a veterinarian for 31 years and I was taught that this was a commodity, this toe amputation was a commodity procedure that I should offer. And in fact, I did offer that. And then our body of knowledge changed and our scope of knowledge changed. And what I tell people when I teach all over the world is you can't know what you don't know. But once you know something, you can't not know it anymore. And now we know that there are ramifications to the decision to perform at ten toe amputation that 31 years ago were considered inconsequential. Thank you. I actually do find that some people who do know things later pretend not to know that. Well, there is that there, in fact. That's a that's a whole other story. But that's a whole nother story. As my wife hates to hear people say. Hey, can I ask. The sponsor a couple of questions, Mr. President? Councilwoman Black, that tell me, because there's a very, very short council bill. What what is the penalty? Is it just basically an ordinance violation? If we found a veterinarian who who did do this against the ordinance. Yeah. They could be fined up to $990. So there's. Go ahead. They they could be fined up to $999. And the rules around this and the enforcement around it would be something that would be decided upon by our animal. That was my next question is how do we envision the enforcement? How would we. Well, I've talked with. The director in Los Angeles, and they passed this law in 2009, and it became effective January 1st, 2010. And they did press releases, letters to vets. And in that time, they've only had two complaints. And it was people who just weren't aware of it, and they just followed up with them and that was it. I think we would all agree that veterinarians are law abiding citizens, and if they know that it is not legal, they won't do it anymore. Okay. Is there. There's nothing in here. I just want to verify this for folks who might be watching and are curious about it. But there is nothing in here that penalizes a cat owner. If the cat owner went into a veterinary in Denver and the veterinarian did it, it would be the veterinarian who would be charged or cited and not the cat owner for procuring the illegal act. Okay, nothing. Then would. Our city attorney, Kirsten. Crawford. Excuse me, I am sorry to interrupt, but I just want to make sure that we're perfectly clear that the general penalty provision will apply, which is up to $999 fine, but also and or up to one year in jail. Now, it's we may may, may take enforcement measures that are shy of that sort of imposition of the penalty. But I just wanted to make sure that that was perfectly clear. And that's in relation to the veterinarian, not the pet owner. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. And there's nothing in here again, just so the folks who are watching and reading later know there's nothing in here that prohibits a resident of Denver from taking their cat to Aurora or Englewood or Littleton or Lakewood and and having a cat declawed there and bringing it back. At this time. That is correct. I'm sorry. At this time. That is correct. Okay. And I think I had one more. If you may, if you can't do this, maybe one of your veterinarian witnesses can. But what I need a little better definition of medically necessary, because that seems to be a loophole in here. What do you do on that? On that question. Sorry. I can't help myself. On on that. Question. On that question. I forgot my Tourette's medicine. I'm sorry. Medically necessary would be things like a congenital abnormality that would be a deformation of the foot that the cat was born with at the foot or the toe developed abnormally and is actually causing a problem to that cat. Another OP opportunity for a medically necessary amputation of the last digit or even all of the digit would be the formation of a tumor. Any time that we have to remove tissue because there is a malignant growth, that is a medically necessary procedure. If a cat were to be hit by a car, for instance, and there would be no soft tissue left to actually heal over the toes, that would be a medically necessary amputation if, for instance, the cat were caught in a trap of some kind. I live in an area where I do see cats that are working, cats who are out and about taking care of mice and other rodents if they happen to get caught in an illegal trap where a part of the foot needs to be amputated because it is gangrenous and has died, that's a medically necessary amputation. Does that give you a flavor? Yes, it does, because I was reading the ordinance is quite broad. Medical that's a medical necessity is to relieve physical illness. Well, I see that as I see that as a pretty broad. Needs. To be a broad definition. Infection, disease or injury. Exactly. It needs to be broad because I couldn't I could be here all night and recite for you chapter and verse of different scenarios that would mandate an amputation of a toe or even a foot. And I think the material on this in committee said that about 90, 95% of of declawing procedures are done for convenience. Only so many successfully would be a very. Small it actually would be a very narrow. Okay. In the population. The only other thing I would add is I, having owned a cat many, many, many, many years ago, I find the term working cat to be oxymoronic. Oh, no. All right. Slipped in the comments there, Councilman Flint. I have no. History on this. Councilman Cashman. It's been asked and answered. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes the question portion of our public hearing. We are now going into comments. Public hearing for Council Bill seven or not is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Black, do you have any or should I. Put in into our. Colleagues here? I will say a few brief comments. Number one, I don't have much to add to the speakers. Their testimonies are very compelling. Most of them are animal care specialists. I've been talking to Aubrey and other vets about it for many, many months now, and I think it's the right thing to do. Denver has proven over and over that we are a compassionate city. This is a national movement and an international movement, and it really is the right thing to do. So I hope you all will support this. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I was just going to say that this is for publication and that and we were hopefully save our in-depth comments for next week when we're voting on final. So I support this moving forward to be ordered published. Councilman Clark. I just want to quickly thank everyone who came out today and stuck with us til not 2:00 in the morning, but a late night in hard seats. Thank you for coming and sharing your expertize and your passion. I really want to thank Councilwoman Black for bringing this forward. As someone who doesn't have cats, someone who is a cat enthusiast like me. I'm very thankful for you bringing this forward and shining a light on it, something that I was not even aware of. And I just want to I want to add that I do think that this broader conversation about the role of government is an important one. And I'll just say that my preference would be that this industry, that that the board and the professional organizations and veterinarians would be self-regulating. And if there was a movement towards saying, you can't do this method, you can only do this method because the science points out and we should even look at that. And and you can't do it for cosmetic reasons. You have to do it for health reasons. And there was a movement towards this. There wouldn't be a need for government to get involved. But this is exactly the core fundamental role of government is to step in. And that's not happening and it's not. And so I think that this is a very appropriate thing for government to take a stand on. And I think some day I hope that the industry gets to a place where this law is no longer needed because the industry is self-regulating on issues like this. And so I'm very supportive of this on first reading, and I hope all my colleagues will vote this on first and second reading. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Black. All right. CLERK Yeah, I am Flynn. I am. Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman, I. Mr. President. I was voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 709 has been ordered published. Final consideration of this bill be Monday, November 13th. Got it. Got a couple more announcements and then you can go and celebrate. All right. City council sitting as ex-officio as board of directors of Denver, 14th Street General Improvement District Rhino, the General Improvement District and Gateway Village General Improvement