Cities in California can prohibit cat declawing without running afoul of state law, which contains no such prohibition for house pets, a state appeals court ruled Friday.

The court reinstated an ordinance in the city of West Hollywood, the only one of its kind in the state. San Francisco, where the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in 2003 condemning the declawing of cats, filed legal arguments in support of West Hollywood.

Some veterinarians oppose declawing, but their trade group, the California Veterinary Medical Association, has fought the ordinance in court and also opposed statewide legislation. A bill sponsored by a West Hollywood legislator that would have banned the practice was defeated in 2003, but lawmakers passed a measure in 2004 forbidding the declawing of captive lions and tigers.

The surgery involves removing not only the claw but also all or part of the last bone and connecting tendons and ligaments on a feline's paw. Opponents say the procedure is cruel and unnecessary.

The West Hollywood ordinance, passed in 2003, declares that the "mere convenience (of declawing) to the pet's guardian does not justify the unnecessary pain, anguish and permanent disability caused (to) the animal.''

The measure makes it a crime to perform the surgery within city limits, except for therapeutic purposes such as removal of infected tissue. It does not prohibit bringing a declawed cat into the city.

A Los Angeles judge overturned the ordinance in 2003, saying cities lack power to limit the practice of state-licensed professionals. But Friday, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled 2-1 that a city can regulate the conduct of professionals, as long as it does not prohibit procedures that state law expressly allows.

West Hollywood has the authority to "set minimum standards for the humane treatment of animals within its borders,'' Justice Dennis Perluss said in the majority opinion.

He began the ruling by quoting Mahatma Gandhi's 1931 observation that the moral progress of a nation "can be judged by the way its animals are treated.''

Dissenting Justice Fred Woods said veterinary practice is "a statewide concern'' that a city can't regulate.

The ruling should encourage other local governments to pass similar ordinances, said Bruce Wagman, a lawyer for the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

The veterinary association's lawyer was unavailable for comment. The ruling could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle