Charged for Piercing Kittens

[Kanastrous]

ALLENTOWN, Pennsylvania - A woman who marketed "gothic kittens" with ear, neck and tail piercings over the Internet has been charged with animal cruelty and conspiracy.

Dog groomer Holly Crawford, 34, was charged Tuesday by humane officers. Her home outside Wilkes-Barre was raided Dec. 17 after the authorities received a tip from the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that she was marketing the animals online for hundreds of dollars.

Crawford has said she will plead not guilty.

Crawford said Thursday that she didn't see any difference between piercing a cat and piercing a human. She said she used sterile needles and surgical soap and that she checked the kittens several times a day to make sure they were healing properly.

"When I did it, it wasn't with any cruel intentions," said Crawford. "They were definitely loved, well-fed, no fleas, clipped nails. And they were happy."

Daphna Nachminovitch, a vice president for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, called the piercings "barbaric."

"There's no excuse for inflicting such pain on an animal that's the size of your palm," she said.

Crawford, who sports her own body piercings, said she decided on a whim to pierce the ears and neck of a stray kitten she took in last fall and named Snarley Monster. She said she docked the cat's tail because it was badly damaged and that the animal was not intended for sale.

Morrison charged Crawford and William Blansett, 37, of Sweet Valley, each with three misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty, three summary counts of cruelty and three counts of conspiracy.

Crawford said Blansett helped take calls about the kittens but that he had nothing to do with the piercings.

A number for Blansett could not be located.

Crawford said her dog-grooming business, Pawside Parlor, has plummeted since the raid and that she has received dozens of nasty phone calls.

"My name's ruined, my reputation's ruined, my business is ruined," she said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28802450/

---

I'm not sure what to make of this. I keep cats, and have on many occasions had to administer subcutaneous and intramuscular injections (cortisone, etc) which - so far as I could see - barely even registered with the cat being injected. Now of course I was doing this on veterinary advice, and the injections were necessary, but the point is that the cats did not give any sign of discomfort, or object to the injections (although of course they could get impatient, being held still while they were administered).

And it's known that the Egyptians used to decorate their cats with jewelry; there are paintings and sculptures of Egyptian cats with earrings; given the high regard (the religious regard) in which the ancient Egyptians held cats, it seems pretty unlikely that they would purposely inflict pain on them, for fun.

I find cats perfectly attractive au naturel, but an earring hoop does sound kind of cool - years ago I considered fitting one of my cats with an earring but decided against it because I was afraid it might catch on something and rip his ear, or get hooked by another cat in a fight, or turn into a source of irritation which he'd want to scratch at. But it did not occur to me to place piercing a cat's ear at the level of animal cruelty...

..whaddya think?

[Darth Wong]

It would never have occurred to me in a hundred years to give a cat or dog a piercing. Animals aren't like people, for fuck's sake. They rub around on the floor all the time anyway, and if you stick a piercing in an animal it might very well tear its own flesh trying to deliberately get it out.

Having said that, I have no doubt that the kind of imbecile who gives a toddler a piercing might do the same to an animal. And yes, I've known people who would give human babies piercings, even below 1 year of age.

[Kanastrous]

Heck, I've seen babies/infants with pierced ears and noses.

Not sure what to make of that, either.

[Mayabird]

Having said that, I have no doubt that the kind of imbecile who gives a toddler a piercing might do the same to an animal. And yes, I've known people who would give human babies piercings, even below 1 year of age.

It is very common in the South. In the rural shithole I grew up in, I think it was the norm. At the very least, I was about the only girl in elementary school (and the rest of my days there) who didn't have her ears pierced (and I say "about" only because there exists a possibility that there was another girl who didn't have pierced ears and I failed to notice; I remember every single girl who started kindergarten having earrings already).

[erik_t]

I'd much rather prosecute such parents than this crazy cat lady.

[Kanastrous]

I'd much rather prosecute such parents than this crazy cat lady.

Do you find that an ear or nose piercing is so harmful to a child as to rise to the level of a prosecutable offense? I mean, what would one charge the parent with?

[erik_t]

Oh, I'm not completely sure. Some sort of low-level child endangerment. Young children are filthy creatures, and I would prefer not to think about the degree of contamination to which the healing piercings would be exposed.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Good god.

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

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.

That woman's nuts.

[Kanastrous]

One can pierce responsibly, or irresponsibly, same as one can feed, clean, shelter and teach a child responsibly, or irresponsibly.

Unless one views a piercing as something only properly done with informed consent, upon an adult piercee, regardless of follow-up care. Which sounds like a reasonable position.

[Kanastrous]

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.

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.

[erik_t]

Well, how young a person can get contact lenses? There's a similar need of rigorous follow-up care.

[Broomstick]

I'd much rather prosecute such parents than this crazy cat lady.

Do you find that an ear or nose piercing is so harmful to a child as to rise to the level of a prosecutable offense?

Yes, I do.

It is an unnecessary (even if minor) procedure involving piercing of the skin and a permanent alteration in a child too young to give consent. It carries a risk of infection, allergic reactions, and damage to the body if the piercing is caught on something. A baby is too young to properly care for a piercing.

Charges? Child abuse and endangerment, just for starters.

Yes, I feel circumcision (except when medically necessary) is in the same category.

[Kanastrous]

Well, how young a person can get contact lenses? There's a similar need of rigorous follow-up care.

Youngest kid I know wearing soft lenses is eight. She seems to be doing all right. Although I disagree with the idea that a piercing is equivalent to contact lenses; having both I can testify that properly fitted contact lenses require far more ongoing attention and care, than a properly placed and executed piercing.

[Kanastrous]

^ okay, Broomstick, that's consistent.

[erik_t]

Well, how young a person can get contact lenses? There's a similar need of rigorous follow-up care.

Youngest kid I know wearing soft lenses is eight. She seems to be doing all right. Although I disagree with the idea that a piercing is equivalent to contact lenses; having both I can testify that properly fitted contact lenses require far more ongoing attention and care, than a properly placed and executed piercing.

I'm not trying to imply strict equivalence; I just think it's worth considering.

[Darth Wong]

I'd much rather prosecute such parents than this crazy cat lady.

I'd prosecute them both. She pierced them to turn them into living gimmicks, so she could sell them as "gothic kittens" on the Internet.

[Kanastrous]

Seems like there's the need to prove harm in order to have something to prosecute. Even if her decision to pierce the cats was motivated by commercial interest.

[Darth Wong]

Seems like there's the need to prove harm in order to have something to prosecute. Even if her decision to pierce the cats was motivated by commercial interest.

Inflicting pain is not "harm" now? Karl Rove would love you.

[Johonebesus]

It might be worthwhile to point out that the groomer pierced their necks and tails as well. Zoologists pierce the ears of wild animals all the time to affix tracking devices. While unnecessary and stupid, I'd compare a pierced ear with forcing a dog to wear an outfit, with the level of cruelty depending on just how outlandish the accessory is. However, placing hoops or bars in an animal's neck or tail is a step further. A tail doesn't even have loose skin.

[Darth Wong]

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.

[Kanastrous]

Seems like there's the need to prove harm in order to have something to prosecute. Even if her decision to pierce the cats was motivated by commercial interest.

Inflicting pain is not "harm" now? Karl Rove would love you.

As I noted in the OP, in my experience cats to whom I've had to give subcutaneous and intramuscular injections didn't react to *those* punctures, at all, which suggests to me that it's probably no more uncomfortable for them than for a human being - possibly less, since from what I have seen humans usually complain more. Although since cats tend to be pretty stoic, I don't know for sure.

I'm not in favor of the procedure, since I don't find that it adds anything valuable or useful to the cat, and doesn't appear to improve the cat's quality of life in any conceivable way. But at the same time it does not appear to me that this rises to the level of animal abuse.

[Darth Wong]

I've had injections too, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't mind somebody putting a ring through my fucking neck.

[erik_t]

I'd much rather prosecute such parents than this crazy cat lady.

I'd prosecute them both. She pierced them to turn them into living gimmicks, so she could sell them as "gothic kittens" on the Internet.

Yes, I should have made that more clear. They're both deserving of punishment. However I think punishment of this should take a backseat to infant piercing, which is much more widespread and bothersome to me.

[Kanastrous]

I've had injections too, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't mind somebody putting a ring through my fucking neck.

Then it's less about whether to pierce, than where. Which seems valid, to me. Some locations *are* better or worse, than others.

*edit* the practice of fitting cattle with nose rings comes to mind. Although I guess you could argue that since the rings serve a practical purpose, and since cattle are food animals, that might be different.

[Ted C]

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.