Last thought on the declaw ban - at least from me, for now. Something has really been bothering me about the presentation from the CVMA vet - you know the guy whose oath includes doing no harm - when arguing that vets should continue to be able to offer declaw surgery. He said he thinks vets should be able to offer declaw surgery instead of doing what the family requests - which is euthanising the cat on the advice of an oncologist. This 'choice': declaw or death has been one of the opposition arguments that has just fucking infuriated me. And it's an argument that many cat advocates have bought - just because it is offered up by vets and many humane societies including SPCA's around California.
Here is the real alternative to declaw - surrender the animal to a Humane Society, SPCA, rescue group or even a municipal shelter (if you can determine that their kill rate is one which would likely mean the cat would be re-homed). Take the money you were just about to pay a vet to kill or maim your animal and donate it to the non-profit as a 'thank you' for helping.
The idea that the alternative to declawing is killing the cat is an insidious and vicious argument. The real alternative to declawing is a low population of domestic cats. If every for profit vet were to offer 3 free spays and 3 free neuters every month to the low income population in your area, lobby the CVMA to re-instate their feral fix subsidy program, and advertise adoptable cats sitting at your local shelter on your notice boards - then watch the numbers of unwanted cats start falling.