There is a huge difference between performing a surgical procedure under anesthetic and forcing dogs to fight each other, often to the death.
I have said before…I think declawing is barbaric. If you want a pet without claws, don't get a cat. That said, however, making it a crime to possess a declawed cat hits the wrong end of the chain. There are many procedures that are banned. But why hit the individual who owns the animal?
With banned human procedures, it is the doctors who get in trouble. Reference Dr. Kevorkian. Patients wanted a "procedure," he supplied it and he got into trouble. I can think of several more human procedures that are rightfully banned, but no need to get gross here.
Once again, though, where does it all stop? How is the law written? Does it, in fact, ban the removal of claws from any animal? A lot of us would be in trouble with that one…considering it is almost universal practice for dog breeders to remove dewclaws, which is an unnecessary amputation done without anesthetic and purely for cosmetics.
Tails are docked, again, without anesthetic, on days-old pups. Why? The ACD that lived with me had his tail intact. He used it for counterbalance when he was running. And it was the most endearing thing for him to sit looking up at me with just the end of his tail wagging on the floor.
I don't agree with mutilating animals. But I also don't agree with government interference in every aspect of individuals' lives. It has to stop somewhere.