Charged for Piercing Kittens

[Broomstick]

The cattle fitted with nose rings were typically intact bulls - a large, dangerous animal. The nose rings enabled relatively small, weak humans to control these large animals with minimal risk to either party. They were also found in draft oxen, for similar reasons. Nowadays, nose rings are pretty rare in cattle. They also have temporary, clip-on noserings for bulls that allow control without permanent piercing.

On the other hand, cats and human babies do not require piercings to be safely controlled by adult humans.

[Broomstick]

I find it difficult to get worked up about piercing an animal's ears if you're not going to get worked up about ear clipping and tail docking.

Not that I'm a fan of either of the latter procedures, but if they're not considered animal cruelty under the law, then a piercing shouldn't be either.

In some places ear and tail clipping are, in fact, considered abuse, against the law, and are prosecutable offenses. Like most of Europe these days.

[Kanastrous]

For some reason ear clipping and tail docking impress me as worse than an ear piercing. Maybe because they're subtractive rather than additive; I don't have a reasoned argument to offer, there.

[Ted C]

In some places ear and tail clipping are, in fact, considered abuse, against the law, and are prosecutable offenses. Like most of Europe these days.

That's all well and good, but my point is that if ear clipping and tail docking are legal in Allentown, Pennsylvania, there should be no case against Holly Crawford.

[Ted C]

For some reason ear clipping and tail docking impress me as worse than an ear piercing. Maybe because they're subtractive rather than additive; I don't have a reasoned argument to offer, there.

Possibly because you can just remove the ring and a piercing will heal up after a while. Ear clipping and tail docking are irreversible cosmetic surgeries.

[Darth Wong]

In some places ear and tail clipping are, in fact, considered abuse, against the law, and are prosecutable offenses. Like most of Europe these days.

That's all well and good, but my point is that if ear clipping and tail docking are legal in Allentown, Pennsylvania, there should be no case against Holly Crawford.

Don't be ridiculous. The fact that the law is inadequate in certain areas does not mean it should be made inadequate in others.

[Kanastrous]

It doesn't seem ridiculous to point out the disconnect - and unfairness - in saying hack off part of an animal's body, no harm no foul; fit a small piece of metal to their body through a tiny hole, now THAT'S something we have to prosecute.

[Ted C]

In some places ear and tail clipping are, in fact, considered abuse, against the law, and are prosecutable offenses. Like most of Europe these days.

That's all well and good, but my point is that if ear clipping and tail docking are legal in Allentown, Pennsylvania, there should be no case against Holly Crawford.

Don't be ridiculous. The fact that the law is inadequate in certain areas does not mean it should be made inadequate in others.

I'm not saying whether the law is appropriate, but I don't see how the law can be shown to forbid what she did if it doesn't also for bid clipping and docking, since the piercings were less damaging and no more necessary than those procedures. That's certainly the defense I would put up in her positions.

As you've said yourself, there's a difference between what is moral/ethical and what is legal. I don't see that there's a legal case against her. On the other hand, any outrage generated by her actions should be redirect to make piercings and more invasive cosmetic procedures on animals illegal in Pennsylvania.

[Johonebesus]

Almost nobody forces a dog to wear an outfit 24/7. Most of the dogs you see in outfits are wearing them because it's cold and they start shivering. My dog happens to be a cold-weather breed and doesn't need an outfit (his fur coat gets really thick in winter), but some of the thin-hair and short-hair breeds need a coat to be walking around in -20C weather.

But your part of the world is both colder and less saturated with stupidity. 40° F is considered very cold here, so every time I see dogs wearing shirts or booties it's just "for fun". I don't think a terrier needs to be bundled up in September.

Granted though even then the clothes aren't permanent. Although I once saw one wearing a very ratty, filthy t-shirt

[Broomstick]

The problem is that if piercings are not properly maintained they can result in infection and further damage.

Some illustrations from humans who were presumably old enough to be responsible for care and upkeep of their piercings:

Let's start with a nice abscess


Keloid scar formation in the traditional ear lobe piercing site:

Keloids can come from infections, and they can also occur spontaneously. Some individuals are more at risk than others, but you can't know until the skin is injured. For an adult (whether human or animal) the risk may be known but not for an infant.

These are abscesses in cats - granted these were not from piercings. They were probably from bite wounds, but they illustrate the damage infections around the ears and neck can do. An animal with piercings has broken skin, and if it fights then the piercing may be torn out, again, leaving broken skin, increasing infection risks over normal.


Even before massive swelling and tissue damage a forming abscess is extremely painful. (Unfortunately, I know that from direct experience) In humans, narcotics may be dispensed for pain control. No, the piercing is not that painful, but any piercing risks infection. The difference between and adult human, a human baby, and an animal is that the adult human

1) Is presumably informed of the risk beforehand - the baby and animal can NOT be informed

2) Is able to take full responsibility for the initial wound - the baby and animal are dependent on an adult human to do this

3) Is able to report pain and inflammation at an early stage - all babies and animals can do is cry and whimper and hope the adult figures it out

4) Is able to care for any infection or injury that arises later - babies and animals are, again, utterly dependent on an adult human to do this.

Animals have no concept of hygiene - they will rub filthy paws on wounds or piercings. They will rub pierced body parts on the ground or in filth because they simply don't know any better. Animals can get into fights that cause injury and infection, piercing jewelry only provides more contaminated surfaces and more entries into the skin.

I am OK with adult humans choosing to pierce their bodies. I would even say that in some cases teen humans can give consent and take responsibility for this. Babies and animals should not be subjected to these things.

Yes, wild animals are often tagged. When tagged, it usually on the edge of an ear where, if the tag is ripped out, it will be a relatively minor injury. We do not tag animals on the neck that I'm aware of. Ear tags are also designed to make them resistant to catching on things, as opposed to rings which easily catch on stuff. We are moving more towards implantable tags that are less likely to be ripped off the animal or to accumulate any sort of dirt or filth. Not all tags are implantable - collars and leg rings (particularly leg rings for birds) are routinely used and do not involve breaking the skin.

Piercing kittens to make them "gothic" or "cute" is totally unnecessary, serves no useful purpose (unlike tagging of cattle, noserings in bulls, or tagging to track and monitor wild animals), and poses a risk to the animal.

[Duckie]

I'm mostly wondering under what definition of Gothic a cat with an earring is considered gothic.

Does it make the cats in some way like spooky 18th century literature?
Does it cause them to burn down Rome and occupy provinces from spain to crimea?
Does it make the cats look similar to impressive mediaeval revivalist architecture?
Does it make the cats black-furred and cover them in makeup?

Which Goth is it supposed to imitate? And why?

Someone else notes that an earring cat seems more like a Pirate cat.

[Kanastrous]

I think it's supposed to appeal to the black-lipstick-Frankenstein-boots-spiky-hair-silver-jewelry-black-mascara crowd.

Or those Eastern Germanic Arian Christian types who annoyed the Romans.

Either one.

[Kitsune]

I guess that while no knowing an action is illegal is not suppose to excuse an action, perhaps a warning and a warning early on would have been a better treatment of the whole situation

[Rye]

I think it's supposed to appeal to the black-lipstick-Frankenstein-boots-spiky-hair-silver-jewelry-black-mascara crowd.

Those types are far more likely to be vegetarian and pro-animal rights. This kook has aimed her "pet as fashion accessory" bullshit at a really hostile target audience.

[Kanastrous]

Well, there's a price to be paid for poor marketing choices.

[Glocksman]

I find it difficult to get worked up about piercing an animal's ears if you're not going to get worked up about ear clipping and tail docking.

Not that I'm a fan of either of the latter procedures, but if they're not considered animal cruelty under the law, then a piercing shouldn't be either.

My boxer had her tail docked by her previous owner.
It may or may not be relevant, but she'll wag her tail like mad when I rub her down.
Except when I touch her tailstump.
The instant anyone touches her tailstump, she tucks it down and scoots away.

If I had my way, unless it was medically necessary both tail and ear docking would be against the law.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Good god.

Well, I'm glad she got charged. I wish she was punished more.

The article does not suggest that the cats were harmed, beyond the point that you consider the introduction of the piercings themselves, as harm. Which does not appear to have been established.

I'm a little impartial when it comes to animals so ... yeah. That's me, though.

And to follow up on Wong's post; not only may they end up pulling them out or ripping their skin; animal's (cats in particular) have a habit of licking their arses clean of shit and then later licking their coats... it could end up infecting the blood with something.

Cats lick all sorts of wounds, all the time. Including much more open and serious wounds, than a piercing channel. Do you propose that cats must be henceforth prevented from licking any wound they receive? Seems like they've been safely doing it, for a very long time.

Well, I can't argue with that.

I find it difficult to get worked up about piercing an animal's ears if you're not going to get worked up about ear clipping and tail docking.

Not that I'm a fan of either of the latter procedures, but if they're not considered animal cruelty under the law, then a piercing shouldn't be either.

In the UK, ear clipping and tail docking is against the law.

[loomer]

I find it difficult to get worked up about piercing an animal's ears if you're not going to get worked up about ear clipping and tail docking.

Not that I'm a fan of either of the latter procedures, but if they're not considered animal cruelty under the law, then a piercing shouldn't be either.

My boxer had her tail docked by her previous owner.
It may or may not be relevant, but she'll wag her tail like mad when I rub her down.
Except when I touch her tailstump.
The instant anyone touches her tailstump, she tucks it down and scoots away.

If I had my way, unless it was medically necessary both tail and ear docking would be against the law.

Same deal with my mini fox terrier. Old stray, docked way too short (half inch stub instead of the two inch or so standard), happily wags it - but if you touch it, he freaks the fuck out. Docking is a barbaric practice with little to no practical applications remaining in the modern world.

[Kanastrous]

What was the original purpose behind docking, anyway? To reduce the dog's vulnerability while fighting or hunting?

[Rye]

What was the original purpose behind docking, anyway? To reduce the dog's vulnerability while fighting or hunting?

Pretty much. Hunting and working dogs tails could collect shit and get infected if they got snagged on thorns or if they were bitten. Also, I once heard we used to use them to pull mine carts, so the tails could've gotten run over, but i have no idea how true that is.

[Prometheus Unbound]

What was the original purpose behind docking, anyway? To reduce the dog's vulnerability while fighting or hunting?

Pretty much. Hunting and working dogs tails could collect shit and get infected if they got snagged on thorns or if they were bitten. Also, I once heard we used to use them to pull mine carts, so the tails could've gotten run over, but i have no idea how true that is.

Some mines were quite small; low - but they don't have a lot of pulling power; it takes 6-10 to pull a sled, I'd not want to work out how many it takes to pull a fully loaded mining cart uphill for what could be several hundred meters etc. I'd have to chalk that as an urban legend unless someone can prove otherwise; a turn-wheel would be better at the top. In any case, for people to dig that far down they'd need more height room than a dog so... hmm. I'm guess that's not true other than perhaps a few isolated incidents.