Gothic Kittens? - Paw Talk

marmilla · #1 02-17-2009, 07:50 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494844,00.html
Another article here (with picture)

Some dog groomer got in trouble for piercing kittens' ears and tails. She called them "Gothic Kittens" and sold them over the internet, according to the news article.

Above is the image from the article

What the heck? Why on earth would someone piece an animal? I really don't understand. The risk for bacterial infection would probably be pretty high because cats like to go outside and get in to things. Plus, wouldn't the piercings get caught on stuff? Very bad idea, imo.

Mygala · #2 02-17-2009, 10:33 PM

Wow.

If state and local law allows other 'cosmetic' procedures, like docking the tail of hunting dogs, or clipping the ears of some breeds, ...I can't see how they could 'legally' call this cruelty.

I'm not condemning those procedures, I'm just sayin' ....JMO.

Bob

Kendalle · #3 02-17-2009, 11:05 PM

http://www.paw-talk.net/forums/f10/p...ens-51592.html

Spunkerella · #4 02-20-2009, 09:44 AM

Piercing an animal is wrong, because you're doing it as a fashion statement. It's not practical in anyway, and will only cause more damage to the cats in the future, guaranteed 100%. No good can come from piercing a cat.

Where as docking, and cropping came along because people were working there dogs. Tails and ears would get damaged by the prey, or by the environment they worked in. Now it should only be acceptable in working or showing dogs, that require it to be done. I agree that some people do crop and dock their pets for cosmetic reasons now, and I think that is wrong, but when an animal is in a situation where it is needed, then it is not animal cruelty.

But piercing a cat, is only cosmetic. There is NO reason for it at all, NO purpose. Piercing causes pain during the procedure, and a painful after care that can last MONTHS if healed correctly. Surface piercings can't last on a human, why on earth would it last on a cat? You can't attach anything to the piercing, and you cant put any pressure on it, or it will reject.

I can even understand tattooing, branding, or piercing cattle, horses, etc... even tattoing dogs.
I've done it to my horse and dogs, because they are valued parts of my life, that may seem valuable to others if they were stolen. Having had branding, tattooing, and piercing done to myself, I assure you that it is not a horrible experience that will damage the animals for life. For dogs and horses, it is done under anesthesia, and healing is pretty much painless and quick. Much less pain then healing from a spay/neuter. Even tagging cows ears/or branding them, if you have SO many heads of cattle that you need to mark them in this way, then by god do it.

But again, piercing a cat serves NO purpose, thus making it animal cruelty.

SarahHound · #5 02-20-2009, 11:51 AM

I saw this a while ago, the article, and I think its just disgusting

poor kittens.

SothPaw · #6 02-20-2009, 05:52 PM

when i got my ears pierced it was completely painless.
true, a cat could get it caught on something... but gillions of animals have pierced tags hanging off of their ears and other parts and bulls have this huge ring in their nose...
if there is a law created, fine... wise people make informed laws. if they are let go scott free that would be a problem too... there should be regulation to make sure that the animals don't suffer and can learn to cope with their new attachment.

Spunkerella · #7 02-21-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SothPaw


	when i got my ears pierced it was completely painless. true, a cat could get it caught on something... but gillions of animals have pierced tags hanging off of their ears and other parts and bulls have this huge ring in their nose... if there is a law created, fine... wise people make informed laws. if they are let go scott free that would be a problem too... there should be regulation to make sure that the animals don't suffer and can learn to cope with their new attachment.

You have to think about the animals though, and the 'jewelery' used. On a two pound cat, a 14g piece of jewellery will act as a wire/cheese cutter and just slice through the body part with ANY trauma at all. On a cow which was a thousand pounds give or take, with a THICK piece of plastic through it's ear, it can take a lot of crap before it gets pulled out. Also look at the habits of the animals. Cats roll around, squeeze through tight places, rub themselves around on things, play with other cats, and dogs etc... Where as cows, graze, lay in mud, maybe rub their butt on a fence, etc... It's completely different.

And if someone had so many cats, and they needed to be tagged to be I.D'd then that would be cool. But with proper identification tags, it's not as bad as using human grade jewellery.

So you can't really compare the two.

As for bulls with bullrings, lots are installed by vets, which pierce the septum, and insert a ring. Also, alot of people just use temporary nose rings on cattle, they clip on to the septum and dont harm the cattle in anyway, other than a slight discomfort for the first few minutes. And bullrings are not as common as you think.
They are used to control the bull, or cattle from harming humans. Bulls become enraged, and not only can they kill, but they will maul you if they feel the need to. They can be highly unpredictable, that is why caution must be taken with bulls.

Again, if kittens regularly killed people, and could be controlled by having nose rings installed, then you could compare that to this, but again, it's not relative.

It just bugs me when people in general compare apples to oranges, or fashion to function in this case, because if people really cared so much about this stuff, then there would be laws on treating slaughter house animals.

People can preach all they want about animal cruelty, but we can't help but be hypocrites.

Mygala · #8 02-21-2009, 09:27 PM

If there were legislation against this practice, that would settle it. However, the precedent is probably set to allow the piercings. Under the law, animals are property. If I wanted to clip the ears and dock the tail of my dog, it would be legal. It doesn't matter what reason is whether I hunt with the dog or show her, it's my dog and the practice is commonly allowed.

In our (relatively) free democratic society, unless something is specifically prohibited, usually it is legal, ...and courts usually rule that way, ...especially if there are legal or commonly standing social precedents. The reason that this is so offensive to many of us is that we are looking at it subjectively, not only from our personal point of view (as pet owners), but from the point of view of the kitten. The law tries to deal with things like this objectively.

How is a judge supposed to rule on this? To outlaw "mutilation" for "cosmetic reasons" would open up a whole can of worms for many people. The ones already mentioned, ...horse owners, breeders, hunters, people who show their dogs, etc. This type of problem to be addressed legislatively, not judicially. I think it's possible, but unlikely that a judge who loves animals will call this animal cruelty, and if he does, it's very likely to be thrown out if the piercer decides to appeal. (Legal costs might discourage him from doing that however...).

Personally, I find it kind of repugnant. However, my preference would be that if we as a society hate this practice, then it should be made illegal by a law that specifically addresses it. I think that judges ought to rule on the interpretation of laws and stay out of the practice of making laws. JMO

Bob

sarahh · #9 02-22-2009, 10:15 AM

Those Poor kittens thats awful and evil thing to do what is wrong with these people.

candyraver · #10 05-23-2009, 01:43 PM

I wouldn't pierce/crop/dock/dye any animal,period.

Poor kitties.

RenishaS · #11 06-02-2009, 07:10 PM

Why is this post in two places?

annie830 · #12 06-04-2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mygala


	Wow. If state and local law allows other 'cosmetic' procedures, like docking the tail of hunting dogs, or clipping the ears of some breeds, ...I can't see how they could 'legally' call this cruelty. I'm not condemning those procedures, I'm just sayin' ....JMO. Bob

I agree but i couldnt face the pain of an animal when it comes to declawing...

candyraver · #13 06-08-2009, 02:38 PM

I'm against declawing too...

I didnt notice it was in two places

Brighteyed · #14 06-30-2009, 01:54 PM

personally i think that its pretty much the same as altering your pets in any other ways wether its neutering, tail docking, dew claw removing ect. i do not find the neutering and dew claw removing cruel because its often needed to keep the pet healthy ect, but other things such as claw or teeth removing for cats are just as bad as this but happens much much more often. i dont think there is anything legally wrong with what the groomer was doing, even though i do not think what she is doing is right