ALERT:. PLEASE BE CAREFUL IF SOMEONE CALLS YOU AND CLAIMS TO BE FROM IRS, ELECTRIC COMPANY OR WHATEVER THEIR REASON MIGHT BE. LOOK AT THIS LINK FOR MORE INFORMATION:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14621

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUT EXTRA MONEY IN YOUR POCKET https://www.ebates.com/r/SYBIL414?eeid=29041
with the holidays coming up, the return percentage is higher.

Pet tattoos

Hunting/Farming/Taxidermy, any topic that may get heated debate.

WARNING things may get a bit rougher here than the other forums.

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10444
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Pet tattoos

Postby TamanduaGirl » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:44 am

http://nypost.com/2014/12/15/new-york-b ... piercings/

I wouldn't do it but I don't really see how tattoos should count as abuse long as the dog was under anesthesia so didn't feel it being put on. I mean you put them to sleep to cut off their balls, and most places it's still legal to crop ears and dock tails as well, so this is abuse and those things not how?

Now piercing I can see a bit more and is stupid because they are much more likely to get a piercing caught on something and ripped out but I feel the same way about people who pierce their babies' ears but I doubt that will ever become illegal and defined as abuse, so it's abuse to pierce a dog but not a baby, okay, that makes sense :roll:

Also since it's not for ID or medical reasons I guess it will be illegal to put a ring in a pigs nose, or a bull or whatever.

I saw it come up on Fb but was logged in as Pua and I try to refrain from comments most of the time that are political when there but it's hard sometimes so I came here instead. They were all lynch-moby about people doing this and I'm just all: it's stupid sure but what makes it a crime worthy of abusing and torturing the person who did it?
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:24 pm

I don't think that it's worthy of torturing the person who does this to their animals, but I definitely don't think it should be legal. But I guess that depends on where you draw your line for legality. To me, I don't think that you should be able to subject an animal to pain unless it's going to be beneficial in the long run. But everyone draws their lines differently. And since abuse is a grey area in the legal spectrum, it varies widely.

Tattoos on animals have their place; our goats are tattooed as a form of permanent ID and our cats and dogs are tattooed as a form of letting anyone who shaves their bellies know they are spayed or neutered, but getting an animal tattooed or pierced does carry risks. Just like people, individual animals can be allergic to the inks or compounds in the ink, the tattoos can get infected, the metals in subpar ink can cause toxicity issues later in life, etc.

I have nothing against people getting tattoos (I've always entertained the idea, but never done so), but it's not something the animal can choose and has no benefit for the animal and in a lot of cases can cause harm. In the case of docking ears and tails, historically speaking, it was useful on farm dogs guard dogs especially to keep them from getting injured or ripped off. Sure, now it's purely cosmetic but I don't think you should really be able to do something cosmetic to the animal that doesn't benefit it including docking, declawing, etc. And, in a lot of places, there are also pushes to have declawing, docking, etc. banned as well.

Nose rings in cattle, pigs, etc. do have a use as well, they give control over an animal that can be potentially harmfully aggressive. I've never been on the wrong side of a bull, but I have no desire to do that speaking from experience handling stallions. :lol:

As far as children go, yea you can have their ears pierced, but I bet you'd get a knock on the door from CPS if you tried to pierce a child's eyebrow, nose, etc. or tattoo them. I don't personally think people should tattoo children's ears, either. :roll: I had mine done at 7ish, and I'm horribly allergic to anything but 14k gold or higher, so they have been nothing but a pain in my rear my entire life to keep open because all my earrings are stupidly expensive and I'm always afraid to lose them (all 5 pairs, woohoo :roll: ). Speaking of which, I should probably go put in some earrings since I haven't worn any in about 6 months... :lol:

To be frank, the whole piercing/tattooing animals thing is just dumb to me. Unnecessary pain for the animal (they may be knocked out for the actual tattoo process, but anyone I've known who has gotten tattoos has told me the aftercare hurts just as bad if not worse, and they are incredibly prone to infection for a few days or weeks afterwards) for what appears to be fitting into a "scene" so to speak. I get having a creative edge, but there is a fine line.

Dumb to me and it hurts the animal:
Image

Equally dumb to me, but the animal isn't hurt:
Image

Regardless of the human's wish, I think that all animals deserve to be free of unnecessary pain, where unnecessary, to me, is defined at not having a benefit to the animal somewhere down the road. And, in a lot of places, inflicting pain on animals for any form of personal benefit but no benefit to the animal IS considered abuse. For example, starving your dog to save money, not taking it to the vet when it hurts itself because "animals don't feel pain", leaving in a car on a hot day because "you'll only be a minute", fighting a dog for status or money or drugs, etc. All forms of abuse because the animal suffers with no conceivable benefit while the humans benefit.
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
just_curious
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:06 pm

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby just_curious » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:02 pm

I just wanna know why anyone wants to do that to their pet? Why in god's name does a dog need a tattoo? It doesn't benefit the animal in any way. You'd have to keep shaving the spot so people could see it as well, unless of course hair never grows in that spot anymore which would make it look even more stupid. Why don't they just be creative and shave designs in their fur? Plus the animal will only live 12-15 years usally. I find it a waste of money personally. I definitly agree with TamanduaGirl, I think a piercing on a dog or cat is cruel as they could easily get it stuck on something. I also don't agree with piercing a baby's ear. Let them decide if they want holes in their body when they get older, that's why we live in America, freedom of speech.
You'd think PETA would be all over this article as well..
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby Juska » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:17 pm

It says the dog in the photo going along with the article had recently gone through surgery and it's owner was a tattoo artist, who tattooed while the dog was still under anesthesia. So the dog was already under anyway. I don't really see a reason for it, but the dog is going to probably be on some sort of pain medication afterward from surgery and is already feeling pain, so I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch over it. Doing it specifically to tattoo an animal would be a little different because that requires anesthetizing it, tattooing and then dealing with the pain and healing afterward, all just for a cosmetic reason. Anesthetization shouldn't be done unless it's necessary which is where I draw the line over the issue.

The piercing thing on domestic pets is kinda unnecessary and possibly harmful too.

You'd think people would be more mad about branding and other old forms of identification methods than [what I'd imagine is] the rare act of someone tattooing their pet cat or dog.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10444
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby TamanduaGirl » Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:06 pm

Juska wrote: Anesthetization shouldn't be done unless it's necessary which is where I draw the line over the issue.


Good point.

I do see it as a bit more borderline issue though. I mean even if you consider it abuse it's kind of mild abuse. It's not on par with dog fights, starving your dog, setting it on fire, or beating it, etc. So while it's stupid and unwise I just have trouble viewing as something that should fall under the same legal punishment as "real" animal abuse.

The AR types were all over the issue even though it's supper rare which is why the law is being passed now. One reason it's rare is I think most know that it would more likely make them a target than seen as cool even if they didn't see it as cruel them selves.

There's also the artist that rescued pigs from slaughter to tattoo his art on them and then they live the good life. Though a more infamous/famous one raised them just to be tattooed then killed to sell the tattooed skin.
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7963
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby Ash » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:12 am

I'm fine with it being done on animals as long as the animal is under anesthesia. I personally think an animal shouldn't be put under unnecessarily, but I do believe it is the owner's choice.

It is NOT abuse to put an animal under for "unnecessary" procedure--neuters/spaying/declawing/tattoo-ing. It's the same people who are against declawing, docking, and cropping who ware against tattoo-ing their pets.

What is abuse is cruelty toward an animal--violence, harming it, neglect. That's cruelty.

I also think it's silly that a human baby's ears can be pierced, but heaven forbid it's done to a kitten. :roll: The horror.

Should it be allowed? Yeah, why not. There's nothing cruel about it unless the animal is conscious and is being restrained and is in pain (then again, branding cows and horses, anyone??). Would I do it? Nah, not for me. I'm kind of a prude when it comes to tattoos on humans anyway, so why would I pay to do it to my pet? lol

I've always thought the tattooed sphynx cats in Russia were really cool-looking, but they're the only animal that I've thought that with. Though pets with pierced ears I think can be cute--especially on an animal like a cat. You could give it "jewelry" sets where it has a "collar necklace" and then the matching "ear studs" or whatever. But would I do it? Nah. I'd just use clip-ons for photoshoots, lol.

Whenever I get around to having a hubby and gettin' a baby, I don't think I'd pierce my kid's ears. But I don't think it's bad if other parents do it. Circumcisions? That's gotta be bad, but hey, it doesn't matter cuz the baby won't remember it anyway.

People these days need to go after the bad guys, NOT the people who are doing "interesting/weird" but legal and humane things. Funny that it's the latter who always get the bad attention to the max and who are suddenly slandered off the face of the earth. But the man next door constantly beating his dog? Nah, let's not worry about him--maybe I'll report him, but he's my neighbor, so could be awkward; hate for him to get such a HUGE negative reputation just cuz of me posting something online about him.

Heck, it's illegal in tons of places to dye your pets fur or to dye Easter bunnies or Easter chicks. :roll: Seriously? Like it's gonna CARE? It's an animal! It could care less whether it was black, white, striped, or purple.

Yet animal rights people get everybody on their side against these issues, and then the public practically ignores all the SERIOUS stuff that should be stopped.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, salamander, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:42 am

Actually Ash, the definition of abuse DOES interpret "unnecessary".

Animal abuse, by definition, encompasses two forms of illegal things: cruelty and neglect. Cruelty is what most people think of abuse being, such as dog fighting, beating, etc. Neglect is in the form of starving, hoarding, etc.

So while it doesn't seem as severe as dog fighting, tattooing a pet for fun is still able to be classified as cruelty, which is a subform of abuse. So sure, it isn't as bad as dogfighting, but that's like saying raping a person isn't as bad as murder. It's still bad either way.

This is an excerpt from one of my current classes (UF's Master's degree in Veterinary Forensics, Animal Abuse and Interpersonal Violence):

"What is Cruelty and What Can We Do About It?

As we further explore the issue of cruelty to animals and human violence, it soon becomes obvious that these concepts - “cruelty” and “violence” mean different things to different people. If we are to try to translate our concerns into laws that protect people and animal from harm, we have to try to be as precise as possible about the actions that concern us.

As you have already started to see from the readings - research literature, philosophers and laws all fail to provide a consistent definition of animal abuse or cruelty and a consistent position on which kinds of maltreatment are most predictive of the capacity to cause harm to people. Frank Ascione (1993) has offered one definition of ‘cruelty to animals’ that is both comprehensive and frustratingly vague, defining it as:

“socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal”

Unfortunately, nearly every word or phrase of that definition is open to interpretation:
1. socially unacceptable - who defines the “society” that defines what is acceptable. Roughly 7-10% of the US population engage in sport hunting, about the same % as define themselves as “vegetarian”. At what point do certain practices become sufficiently common to become the standard of “socially acceptable”? Does public opinion necessarily reflect public behavior? Braithwaite and Braithewate (1982) surveyed attitudes towards many different forms of behavior towards animals. They point out a major ‘disconnect’ between opinions and actions. For example 73% disapproved of force feeding geese to produce pate’, but only 46% disapproved of actually eating pate’ produced in this way.

Laws may reflect the societal norms of a majority - or they may reflect those of a vocal and/or powerful minority. Since the process of passing new laws is a slow one, there can be a considerable lag between shifts in what is considered socially acceptable and laws which seek to prevent behaviors that fall outside these standards, which can result in the continued presence of rather archaic laws. This is certainly true of animal cruelty laws - as is noted in the Favre reading. Most of our existing statutes grew from English Common Law which arose at a time when most animals were kept for food, fiber, transportation or other utilitarian purposes - companion animals were relatively rare. Those most state codes relating to animal cruelty make reference to “overdriving” or “overburdening” animals - concepts with only limited applicability in the 21st Century.

2. intentionally - The concept of intentionality is critical in many laws, often serving to distinguish between murder and manslaughter or varying degrees of serious crimes. The most common defense in animal cruelty cases is that the perpetrator “did not mean” to cause suffering or death, and many prosecutors see a need to have evidence of intent before pursuing the most serious charges.

As you will see in the Arkow and Lockwood review and in reviewing various statutes, many use terms such as “knowingly”, “willingly” or “maliciously” to describe cruel acts resulting in more serious penalties. Most animal cruelty cases involve neglect, which may or may not involve “intent”. A few states are beginning to recognize concepts such as “malicious neglect”, in which it can be argued that any reasonable person would know that the act would result in suffering or death and those should be held responsible for intending this result. For example, chaining a dog without access to food or water until it starved or locking a cat in an empty closet would technically be considered neglect, but there is a degree of intentionality that is different from ignorance of heath care needs or accidental injury.

From the standpoint of the focus of this course, the question of intent becomes a very important one in identifying people who are at higher risk for violence against others. As you will see in later readings, many of the most significant indicators of the capacity to cause harm are related to a repeated history of intentionally and repeatedly inflicting pain, suffering or death on animals. In addition, another indicator seems to be the lack of empathy and any capacity to experience the suffering of others.

3. unnecessary - How do we decide when and how much pain, suffering or death is “unnecessary”. Is it being done to further some human ‘need’ (food, health, entertainment, fashion, vanity)? Is it inflicted to benefit the animal (veterinary care, relief of suffering) or does it fall somewhere in between (e.g. euthanasia of unadoptable or surplus animals). Often legal battles may be waged over the interpretation of necessity, as in recent attempt in some counties to prohibit declawing of cats as ‘unnecessary’.

4. pain, suffering or distress - How do we know when an animal, or child, or fellow adult is experiencing “pain, suffering or distress”. That could be the topic for an entire course in itself and has been at the heart of many controversies.

In crafting laws we often try to identify actions that are clearly harmful and which reflect the capacity for greater harm against society, or which serve to protect those who cannot protect themselves."

So yea, almost all current laws shaping animal abuse and animal cruelty laws fall back to that one phrase, but all states define "cruelty" and "neglect" differently. And I think most everyone can agree that tattooing or piercing an animal does cause pain that is, aside from the human's own ego, unnecessary.

As an aside, I'm also against circumcision on baby boys. If it's a felony to circumcise baby girls here in the US, it should be a felony to circumcise baby boys too.
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7963
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby Ash » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:16 am

Well, we do allow livestock to have holes punched in their ears and branded, don't we? And they are not anesthetized. Also castrated. Like I said, I would never do any of that myself, but if we allow it to be done to farm animals--and human babies (piercings)--why the double standard?

That's what bothers me. It's hypocrisy.

I do agree that it is unnecessary, but so are most of the things we humans do for convenience's sake. Like declawing. I am cool with declawing a cat--if I got a cat, I'd want to get a declawed one for convenience's sake. So it's all a matter of where do you "want" to draw the line. You can remove bits off of a male animal during a neuter, cut a female animal open for a spay, declaw it, defang it, but you can't tattoo it when it's asleep and can't feel anything? Of all those things, tattooing seems FAR less invasive. Don't they tattoo feral cats' ears or clip their ears during a neuter/spay? That's fine, I guess, but as long as you don't give it an elaborate one, I suppose (being sarcastic there).

Like I said, I personally wouldn't do it. But if owners want to and they are being humane about it, I don't think it is nearly as big of an issue as people make it seem. There are plenty of "unnecessary" things we do with our animals out of convenience, and to me, it is not cruel. I'd neuter a dog if I had one. I'd declaw a cat. If I wanted to tattoo my cat at the same time as its under anesthesia, why not?

I'm just saying, in the grand scheme of things, it is (imo) a silly "issue." Unless some breeder was producing hundreds of animals that they had restrained, tattooed like crazy in their home, caused them pain, etc. But this guy did it when his dog was under anyway, so what's the problem?

That's where I'm coming from. Like I said, I don't think I'd ever personally do it, but I would not think someone was cruel if they did.

And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But as I mentioned, it is a question of where do we WANT to draw the line. If we say "no piercings for cats," then why does nobody care about the cattle that get their ears staple-punched? It just feels hypocritical to me.

It's like the same people (but admittedly, to a lesser degree) that think it's abuse to "dress-up" your animal in human clothes. Is it necessary? No. Do they like it? No, not really. Is it cruelty/abuse? Absolutely not. I admit this is a much extreme of an example, but I feel it's a decent comparison to, say, declawing out of convenience. Or even cropping due to looks. Or tattooing due to looks.

But I'd never do it myself. I just respect other peoples' rights to do what they want to their animals as long as it isn't cruel or abusive (from my definition of the words).
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, salamander, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:55 am

The hypocrisy is one I agree with you on. Branding, eartagging, etc. is cruel, as is surgical castration without anesthetics. However, both of these are extremely rare as small farms don't do it and large farms are phasing it out. Most large farms are moving to microchip type implants in calves rather than brands, tattoos, or ear tags. Less pain, no risk of it fading, falling out, etc. and it gives the animals a digital number that can be read with a scanner from much further away than a tattoo or ear tag can be read. Small farms generally only use tattoos which do cause pain but a lot of small farmers anesthetize animals for it, and perform other things (disbudding, castration) at the same time. And, in a lot of states, it's often required by state law to either tattoo or microchip livestock. Sure, there are small farmers like the breeder we got our goats from that do not anesthetize animals, but I have noticed in the small farmer forums I've been using that most people do not do that to their livestock anymore.

Castration on all species of livestock is typically done with a band now, which does not cause pain only mild discomfort by cutting off blood circulation. Sure, it causes a bit of numbness which is uncomfortable, but it isn't painful. It's similar to wrapping string around your finger too tight. Banding causes the lowest number of infections, has the least amount of stress on the animal (when cortisol levels on the animal are compared from before and after the procedure), and is also cheap.

Should livestock be considered the same for legality purposes? Of course. But, so many people don't want to see their grocery bills rise that it often comes at the expense of the animals. Even so, California just passed a bill requiring chickens to have more room, so things ARE changing on the hypocrisy spectrum.

Declawing/defanging is just as much considered cruelty in a lot of cities, and some states now. NY and Hawaii are both setting bans on declawing, from what I've heard. Many cities in California don't allow cats to be declawed. And to be honest, it shouldn't be legal. In most EU countries and most provinces in Canada, it isn't because of the chronic pain it causes.

The reason why people have cats declawed is illogical in and of itself. It's for "convenience" of not trimming claws. But all of the studies done so far show that cats have far MORE behavioral issues when declawed. The vast majority of cats that are declawed develop arthritis, claw and bone regrowth under the skin, and suffer from joint and bone deformities because you are literally changing the way they walk. All of this pain causes cats to lash out, bite, eliminate outside of the litterbox, etc. and some surveys show as many as 75% of all declawed cats are rehomed due to behavior issues.

So if you do ever get a cat, get an older one that's already declawed and deal with it's behavior issues before deciding to declaw a kitten. I will almost guarantee you that you will regret it, because it is much less hassle to spend 30 seconds 2x per month trimming nails than it is to spend hours keeping floors clean from accidents or treating your own bite wounds. My mother is dealing with this issue currently. Her older declawed cat only eliminates on the carpet now (which is white), and her younger one is so aggressive that he has bitten and caused multiple infections in both her and the older cat. And her situation is the norm, not the exception to the rule. Sure, kittens are fine with it at first, but it's later when all of the behavioral and pain issues start to arise. But, this is a completely different argument, because declawing actually is considered cruelty because it forces an animal to live in chronic pain for the rest of it's life where as tattooing isn't going to be chronic pain.

As far as tattoos on spayed/neutered animals, it carries a much lower risk. They are small, often less than 1 inchx1 inch, leaving much less opportunity for infection, and are not performed with the needles needed to do elaborate tattoos, just a simple set of pins on a backing that is easily sterilized.

Spaying and neutering isn't considered unnecessary because it is necessary the vast majority of the time for people to keep animals from unintentionally reproducing. That being said, there are plenty of responsible owners out there who can keep intact animals and never have them accidentally breed, but the vast majority of the animals are not kept by such owners. In addition, these accidental litters cause unnecessary suffering for animals that have to be euthanized when there are no homes for them to go to. Having worked in shelters myself, it is EXTREMELY difficult to euthanize healthy, happy animals simply because there is no room for them in anyone's home. And those individuals that breed irresponsibly also hurt the humans that work in those situations, because euthanizing animals that are healthy is mentally and emotionally exhausting. Shelter workers have one of the highest suicide rates of all fields of animal related careers, and most cite the eutanization/overpopulation issue as why. So when an animal is spayed or neutered, it not only is benefitting other animals by never being able to contribute to the overpopulation issue, but it also keeps down the need for shelter workers to euthanize healthy animals, the societal benefits are far greater than the risks of anesthetics on the animal.

Part of the reason why this is a discussion even, is because society's views are changing. By definition, animal abuse is a society defined subject. More and more individuals are seeing the reality behind declawing, defanging, docking, etc. and are moving away from it, because it really is only necessary for human arrogance or convenience. And the majority of individuals are moving towards the belief of not seeing human convenience or vanity as a good excuse for causing pain and suffering, whether it is temporary or permanent.
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby Juska » Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:29 pm

Ash, I seriously can't believe you would get a cat declawed. There are very high statistics in favor that the cat will have pain in its feet for the rest of its life, not be able to climb at all or land from jumps safely, have numbness in their feet, irritation caused by walking on crippled feet, have bone and/or claws regrowing through its pads and all other sorts of terrible things.

There's kind of a big difference between spaying/neutering and declawing/defanging. You do know how they declaw cats, right? They cut off the entire end joint of their toes, usually with a tool that looks like a huge pair of dog nail clippers. They just wrench them off, not really a clean cut. Some vets use a laser but in most rural areas and even cities they can't afford that.

It's like if your parents cut your fingertips off as a child because they got mad at you for drawing on the wall. How is that humane at all? Because you wouldn't want to run the risk of the cat scratching your furniture? At least spaying and neutering has a benefit for both owner and pet. Their hormones don't run wild and affect their behavior (trying to run away, marking, making loud mating calls, adding to the already overpopulated pet population, spreading diseases) and as a result we don't have to try and correct and/or deal with the unwanted behaviors and consequences by simply removing the organs that cause it. It's not the same as "I'm afraid to have a pet that will scratch or chew my things so I'll just have them painfully, haphazardly removed with the chance that they'll get infected or cause pain to them the rest of their lives".

Declawing and defanging should be illegal. There isn't a proven method to do it where there is little to no chance of the claws re-emerging and/or causing pain in their feet for the rest of their days. If you can't handle a pet that has teeth or claws, don't get one. Spaying and neutering in domestic pets is commonplace, beneficial and humanely done.

I don't see how you can place both in the same category. I can't believe you would place DRESSING UP AN ANIMAL AND DECLAWING ONE in the same category as "not cruel". How is that logical in the slightest? Hacking off an animal's toes and teeth, things that they NEED, isn't cruelty? Animals don't NEED their sexual organs to live a long happy life. The docking and ear cropping isn't necessary either, but it's not the same thing as cutting their damned toes off.

Would you declaw and defang your fox for "convenience" and be "cool" with seeing them in pain, acting aggressively toward anyone who comes near them because of that pain and probably having more issues than just having claws and teeth? Would you defang your snakes so they don't bite you?
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7963
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby Ash » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:01 pm

My comparison about dressing up an animal to declawing/cropping/docking, I admitted upfront was a much more toned-down example and not at all an extreme one--though maybe I made that a bit unclear. I'm just saying, if people start to make it illegal to do certain procedures with their animals--when will it stop?

I have heard from several exotic cat sanctuary owners that it highly depends on the cat's weight how declawing effects it later in life (granted, these people aren't vets or scientists, just owners). They say if it's a light little cat and it is declawed early, there aren't many issues. Owners of sanctuaries with big cats say they do not see much issues when lighter cats, like servals and bobcats, are declawed. But that they do start seeing issues with tigers and lions as they age. That changed my opinion on declawing the big cats, but kept my stance the same on the lighter ones.

I know what declawing entails, and I am certain not every single cat that has been declawed at an early age is suffering so horrendously. In all honesty, if there were two cats at a shelter that were exactly the same, but one was declawed, which do you think would be adopted first? The declawed one, of course, and then the other one gets put down. I may not be up to date with the most recent studies regarding declawing though, but at least the declawed cat got to live. And I think it will have an overall better quality of life. That is obviously debatable though, and I get that.

Comparing declawing to cutting off a human's fingers is not a good comparison--because a cat doesn't know or think about what happened or "why are my claws gone?" It just learns to adapt. Whereas a human would live their entire lives comparing themselves to other people with fingers. And I know people who have had fingers/hands removed--even my sister had to have a toe amputated. And neither of them have ever expressed being in pain. Yeah, my sister need to learn to walk a bit different, but I don't think she's going to be developing pain in that foot because of it (could be wrong, fingers crossed it doesn't happen).

Rexano supports the option for people to CHOOSE whether they wish to declaw/defang/neuter/spay/crop/dock/etc, and my personal views usually line right up with theirs. (Not always, but most of the time.) So I stand with them there.

I think we all can agree though that regardless of the procedures anyone chooses to do to their animal, the animal should be in minimal distress or not be in any pain. ;)

I'm always open to changing my opinion. I'm not one of those people that has an opinion and never sways, regardless of new studies, new info, etc. Facts are facts, but you also need to see where those facts are being pulled from. There are biased studies on both sides of every issue.

Think of all the "Video games are bad for you" arguments versus "Video games stimulate your brain and make you smarter." So both sides have to be reviewed to make a more informed decision. It's like getting all of your political info from CNN, or solely from Fox News.

If you're worried about me getting a cat and declawing it, don't worry. I'm not planning on getting a cat. So my opinion does not mean much. It would probably have an enclosure outside anyway since they shed a lot and I wouldn't want to keep it indoors.

To be honest, if someone wanted to declaw their fox, I'd think, "Okay, that's weird and unnecessary, and it's really not going to solve any problems. I'll try to talk you out of it, but if you do wind up getting it done by a licensed vet, I don't see anything morally/ethically wrong with it. I may just think you're being dumb." And maybe that's how you view me with my current approach to declawing cats (which is fine, I admit I am not as up to date on the current studies, so some peer-reviewed articles would be nice).

And maybe I need to be more informed than I currently am before forming an opinion. I thought I had done the research, but Meaghan has brought up several things I had not considered or knew. So I'll quit discussing it for now, because if I am curious and I will read some peer-reviewed sources and then make my opinion more solid--and even then, in a few years, it may change again.

Just like my opinion on venomoids--I understand thoroughly the issues on both sides. And I see each side's point very clearly. I have also read peer-reviewed articles regarding snakes and painkillers. So even though on this I personally sway back and forth, I at least have a full, clear understanding of the issue and regardless of my opinion, I am well-informed.

I admit I personally despise the phrase, "Each is entitled to their own opinion." That bothers me. It should be phrased, "Each is entitled to their own educated/informed opinion." I had done lots of researching regarding declawing in the past, but as I mentioned, I may not be as up to date now.

I'm not an unreasonable person or a brick wall. :icon-wink: As I said, I'm open to changing my mind about these things. I felt like I had done research on both sides, but maybe there's more to look at and more current studies to delve into.

What bugs me a bit though, is it almost seems like in order for me to be considered "informed and educated" about declawing, my opinion MUST match up with yours, which should not be the case. I should have the right to make my own informed decision AFTER looking at both sides and studying both sides. If in the end I choose to be against declawing, I'll feel like you guys will be happy (justly so). But if in the end, I still disagree with you, I think you'll still see me as uneducated and cruel (which, in my opinion, would not be fair).

There's a reason why these issues are still around. You have people who are fairly informed on both sides of the issue, but they still take opposing stances. That's sometimes just how it goes.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, salamander, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10444
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby TamanduaGirl » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:48 pm

"if I got a cat, I'd want to get a declawed one"

"Ash, I seriously can't believe you would get a cat declawed."

I adopted a cat that had been delcawed. It was her last day at the shelter before being put down. Should she have been put down because it's wrong to get a declawed cat? I would let her into the yard supervised and freaked one day when she climbed over the 6ft fence to the neighbor but thankfully she came back quickly. She never had any problems with it but she did still have her rear claws. The only litter box issues she had was pooping in my bed when I first got her but when I didn't get rid of her like her past owners she quit doing it, she was just testing me. Then later if I didn't clean her box often enough for her liking she would take my stuff to her box to cover her deposits. I don't think her having claws would have changed that behavior. Got to train your human somehow. I think she had a good life and would not have been better off allowed to die at the shelter just because someone delcawed her.
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby Juska » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:01 pm

It's just kind of odd that I've never met a person who loves/works with animals, and is actually educated about proper care of them, that was okay with declawing or had it purposefully done to their pet. Never. It just doesn't compute in my mind that you care about animal welfare, yet think declawing is just a-okay.

Dogs can dig and scratch at things with their claws too, actually they could probably do considerably more damage to things than a cat could, but you don't see people declawing them. It's not even a size issue there as you said with large versus small felines; you wouldn't declaw a Dachshund, which are bred to dig, so why declaw a cat of similar size?

It's called clipping their toenails. There is literally no good reason to declaw an animal. I clip my cat and dog's toenails. The cat can't scratch anything and damage it, also I give her things to scratch that she uses instead of our furniture. Problem solved.

"I should have the right to make my own informed decision AFTER looking at both sides and studying both sides."

Yeah, you do. But maybe you should have done that before saying the things you did, and then saying "And maybe I need to be more informed than I currently am before forming an opinion".

TD, I don't think adopting a declawed cat is "wrong", I never said anything of the sort. I said purposefully taking a cat to a vet and having it declawed is wrong. Because as I said above, there is no reason for it, other than to cause the animal pain.

If declawing was such a humane and beneficial procedure, then why do some of them end up in shelters with behavioral and health problems because of the declawing? And before you try slinging back that I'm saying all declawed cats end up in shelters because of the procedure, I'm not.

People don't abandon their pets because their tails were docked or because they were neutered. If a procedure like declawing can cause THAT many problems, enough that some people can't handle it and they abandon their pet at a shelter, how is that okay? I just don't understand that logic. Both sides of an argument aren't always in the right.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10444
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby TamanduaGirl » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:17 pm

Okay but to be fair while Ash said she is okay with people declawing with what she knows right now she also said she would not have it done but would get a cat that was already declawed if she was going to get one. You seemed like you were reacting negatively to both parts of that. Glad that's cleared up.

While I didn't purposefully seek out a declawed cat to adopt(actually would normally try to avoid it since it's best to keep them more restricted), I don't see someone doing so as a problem as long as they exist to adopt. If it ever does become totally outlawed eventually that option wont exist either.
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7963
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Pet tattoos

Postby Ash » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:09 pm

I had said I felt I already had read enough informed articles about declawing. So I felt I did have a right to an informed opinion. However, it seems like there has been more studies done apparently that has changed peoples' minds, so that's why I said maybe I should look up more on it.

There are some things like this: some people think a farmed fox should never live life in a cage. There are others who think it is fine. Studies have shown that a fox that has lived in a cage its entire life is not more stressed because it doesn't know any different. But who conducted that study? Fur farmers. Then there are the studies that show this is terrible for the animal, that it gets scared easily, its feet get hurt, its unnatural, etc. But who did that study? Anti-fur people. There are studies on both sides that support both issues.

So am I cruel if I read/study both opinions and decide that I am fine with foxes living in their current fur farm setting? A 4X6' cage, or whatever it is? Is it suddenly impossible to see me as an animal welfarist? And is that really incomprehensible?

I suppose all the vets that declaw are cruel too then and don't care about animal welfare--despite the years of dedication they spent studying the subject throughout vet school.

But as I myself said, apparently I need to review more recent studies if this is really a huge issue. Meaghan supplied some facts and info to consider that I was not aware of, for example. Now I need to review my opinion. But I need to read fair, unbiased, peer-reviewed studies that truly look deep at the facts.

Like I said before, my opinion on venomoids has switched back and forth over the years--and I understand that issue 100%.

So give me a chance to actual form my opinion if RECENT studies have come out that I have failed to read before labeling me a "cruel" person. Based on OTHER studies I had read, it seemed okay to me. But yeah, maybe it's not. But I need to research it now. That's why I said it wasn't worth for me to discuss anymore, because obviously I am not well-versed enough in the issue to deserve an opinion.

But to label me as someone who must be cruel for supporting the right to declaw is just a little intense, to me. As I said, Rexano supports the right to declaw, even though they personally don't do it to their cats. I guess they are cruel too.

I just found it offensive to give me that label. To say that if I do wind up agreeing with declawing, then I must not love animals and must be a cruel person. I know this is the controversial section though, so it's not like I'm not ready for my views to be challenged either, nor do I mind the bluntness. Your first paragraph felt unnecessarily harsh, but like I said, this is the controversial section. If I didn't want my feelings hurt, then I shouldn't post in here.

I came to read and debate and talk about it. And by doing so learned that I apparently have more to research. And I'm cool with that and keeping my opinion off to the side for a while.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, salamander, 3 tarantulas

Return to “Controversial ANIMAL Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest