I can understand when Boston landlords refuse to house pets along with their tenants. Cats and dogs can be high maintenance, cause a ruckus and some people are unfortunate enough to be allergic. But when proprietors call for the allowance of cats in a living space on the condition that they’re declawed, I have to cry foul. Beacon Hill is doing so too, as the Joint Committee on Housing will consider a bill prohibiting landlords from requiring cats be declawed.
The thing about declawing is that, by its name, it’s implied that the procedure is simply removing a feline’s claws. But it’s really a partial amputation of the toe bones to prevent the regeneration of claws. And while declawing is sure to keep your little kitten from scratching others and shredding your furniture, the operation can cause painful repercussions.
The bill sponsored by state Senator Anthony W. Petruccelli (D-East Boston) calls for the prohibition of a landlord to deny occupancy to someone based on that “person’s refusal to declaw an animal; require any tenant or occupant of real property to declaw any animal allowed on the premises;” and to “discourage application for occupancy of that real property because an applicant’s animal has not been declawed.”
If for whatever reason a landlord were to disavow this law, he or she would be subject to punishment “by a fine of not less than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than six months,” not to mention the likely flack they’d catch from various animal rights groups and anti-declawing advocates.
You can check out the bill in its entirety below. But in the meantime, what do you think? Should it be up to the discretion of the landlord to decide upon the state of an animal they allow to live in their building? Or is this bill spot on, and should have been considered years ago? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
