DescentBB

Is this justice?:

WILKES-BARRE – A Ross Township woman convicted in the “gothic kittens” case, in which prosecutors say she docked the tails and pierced the necks and ears of several kittens, was sentenced Monday to house arrest.

Holly Crawford, 35, was sentenced to one year in the county’s Intermediate Punishment Program by Luzerne County Judge Tina Polachek Gartley.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/House_a ... -2010.html

Now before you get all teary eyed over the poor kittens let remember:

1) Human babies get their ears pierced and no problems with parents being convicted of a crime.

2) Docked tails are a routine procedure for puppies such as Dobermans and Rottweilers.

So why is this woman being convicted of a crime?

Heh. Everyone knows cute little animals have more rights than humans.

I don't understand why she would do that and I wouldn't do it myself, but I don't know if it is something that should be prosecuted. Surely the courts have better things to do...

woodchip wrote:1) Human babies get their ears pierced and no problems with parents being convicted of a crime.

Putting aside my view of any parent who would do something like that as a complete raging idiot, human ear piercing is conducted under a controlled sanitary environment. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this wasn't the case here. And really, trying to impose human beauty implements on an animal is more than a bit wacky.

2) Docked tails are a routine procedure for puppies such as Dobermans and Rottweilers.

Yes, for medical reasons which don't apply to cats in the least. It isn't something you do just for the hell of it. This is a pretty clear-cut case of animal cruelty.

Krom wrote:Heh. Everyone knows cute little animals have more rights than humans.

Very true. and yet people frequently prove themselves dumber than animals on a regular basis.

topGun wrote: Putting aside my view of any parent who would do something like that as a complete raging idiot, human ear piercing is conducted under a controlled sanitary environment.

Not being contentious here, just had a thought.
While the piercing itself is indeed done in a semi-sterile environment (ie "sanitary") .. provided you don't go to some greasy shop.. maintaining that piercing is not. Obviously, you have to continually watch for infection for a couple or week (at least depending on the person) and take a lot of work and care. .. and on babies, it's all the more difficult. And sad to say, that not all parents are diligent enough.

Top Gun wrote: Yes, for medical reasons which don't apply to cats in the least. It isn't something you do just for the hell of it. This is a pretty clear-cut case of animal cruelty.

Huh? How is it for medical reasons? I have a Brittany Spaniel that has a docked tail. Most Great Danes have cropped ears. I had a Blue Heeler with a docked tail. Many dogs get their dew claws cut (grant it, because they can snag easily and get ripped open). Most cropping/docking is for pure appearance reasons, or for practical reasons, but not for medical purposes that I am aware of.

From what I understand, certain dog breeds with long tails are very prone to developing infections in those tails, based on the general area of the body they're in. (The rear end ain't the cleanest spot, that's for sure.) Docking them is a preventative measure to avoid potential complications down the line.

And yes, Duper, all of that is why I'd consider parents who'd get their baby's ears pierced to be total idiots. There's simply no call for it.

Thanks Top Gun for the info.

Hmm...apparently the practice isn't without controversy, even for dog breeds which have historically had it done. In a way, that probably makes the case against the cat owner even stronger.

We are subject to the whims of lawmakers in lots of ways.
After all, it is legal to raise animals in cages only to later smash their brains in, strip their flesh off, chop them into pieces and cook their meat, eat them and make trinkets and shoes out of their parts.....but be careful how you groom them because it may offend a meat eating bureaucrat one day and then you might end up in his cage!

Will Robinson wrote:We are subject to the whims of lawmakers in lots of ways.
After all, it is legal to raise animals in cages only to later smash their brains in, strip their flesh off, chop them into pieces and cook their meat, eat them and make trinkets and shoes out of their parts.....but be careful how you groom them because it may offend a meat eating bureaucrat one day and then you might end up his cage!

Yes, because that's exactly the distinction that's being made here.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:1) Human babies get their ears pierced and no problems with parents being convicted of a crime.

Putting aside my view of any parent who would do something like that as a complete raging idiot, human ear piercing is conducted under a controlled sanitary environment. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this wasn't the case here. And really, trying to impose human beauty implements on an animal is more than a bit wacky.

Wacky perhaps But criminal?

2) Docked tails are a routine procedure for puppies such as Dobermans and Rottweilers.
Yes, for medical reasons which don't apply to cats in the least. It isn't something you do just for the hell of it. This is a pretty clear-cut case of animal cruelty.

Ummm...if docking tails was for sanitary reasons then all dogs should have their tails docked. Especially the long haired breeds. I have owned both rotties and dobes and never have I heard their tails were cut because of "medical" reasons.

That’s what they used to say about circumcision.

From what I've read, certain long-haired breeds are the ones that most often undergo the procedure, for that very reason. Short-haired dogs, or dogs whose tails are naturally positioned more upward, presumably wouldn't have any sanitary concerns whatsoever. In any case, even that usage of the procedure has come under fire by veterinary groups, which is all the more reason why what this woman did to those cats should be looked at in a negative light.

Dobermans have both their tails docked and their ears cut for no medical purpose what so ever. It is done soley for cosmetic reasons and is a breed standard procedure. Ever see a naturally long tailed, flapped over ears Dobermen in a AKC show ring?

OTOH, slipping a sharp knife in a babies brain just prior to exiting the birth canal is only termed a \"partial birth abortion\". No crime there eh?

Medical experiments on animals is also not a crime. So why the dichotomy with the woman getting a conviction?

“Crawford told the judge she has been rehabilitated and off drugs for approximately five years and decided to turn her life around by creating her business and embracing her love of pets.”

No good deed goes un-punished.

And, they took away her income, and her website…lol whatever happened to punishment fitting the crime.

That’s progress for ya.

woodchip wrote:Medical experiments on animals is also not a crime. So why the dichotomy with the woman getting a conviction?

Because it's all about purpose and circumstances. Animal testing has certain regulations that researchers generally have to abide by, and violators can certainly get in trouble. There's also the issue that, at the present time, certain medical testing simply has to be conducted on living animals, as there's no other way to obtain the results; a greater understanding of fields like protein interaction can hopefully help minimize it in the future. In this case, though, the woman was performing the docking and piercing for no real reason at all, without that greater purpose to justify it.

And I'm not really sure where we're going with the dog issue. I've already acknowledged that its use for even strictly-health purposes is controversial, to say nothing of purely-cosmetic instances. And if you have a problem with the latter, one would think that you would have an equal problem with what happened to the cats. So are we even disagreeing on anything?

Spidey wrote:No good deed goes un-punished.

I wouldn't exactly call what she was doing an unequivocal "good deed." Even if she meant no harm by it, she should have known that it was an immensely stupid thing to do.

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We are subject to the whims of lawmakers in lots of ways.
After all, it is legal to raise animals in cages only to later smash their brains in, strip their flesh off, chop them into pieces and cook their meat, eat them and make trinkets and shoes out of their parts.....but be careful how you groom them because it may offend a meat eating bureaucrat one day and then you might end up his cage!

Yes, because that's exactly the distinction that's being made here.

You can frolic in your "distinction" all you want I'm just making an observation of the selective morality/outrage.

I think what should be kept in mind is that practicing any form of procedure on either human or animal should entail some sort of licensing to ensure that the person(s) doing it were qualified and used proper procedures. Sterile equipment, antibiotics, anesthesia either local or general.

I would not want someone practicing any kind of medical procedure without some kind of licensing whether it be on humans or animals. I think this was the right call provided she was not licensed to perform such procedures.

That quote is out of context…the good deed that was punished, was changing her life…not what she did to the cats.

You missed the point and twisted what I said. (again)

Don't quote me anymore.

SuperSheep wrote:I think what should be kept in mind is that practicing any form of procedure on either human or animal should entail some sort of licensing to ensure that the person(s) doing it were qualified and used proper procedures. Sterile equipment, antibiotics, anesthesia either local or general.

I would not want someone practicing any kind of medical procedure without some kind of licensing whether it be on humans or animals. I think this was the right call provided she was not licensed to perform such procedures.

In the case of tail docking, the breeders do it themselves or may have a vet do it:

"Docking of less than 10-14 days old puppies are routinely carried out by both breeders and veterinarians without anesthesia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_%28dog%29

Since the woman was doing the same thing and in the same manner dog breeders do then why would it be a crime? As far as I know breeders are not licensed to do the procedure. As far as ear piercing goes are you saying all those human ear piercings are done by a licensed medical person? I think as Will points out, someone was selectively applying the law.

woodchip wrote:

SuperSheep wrote:I think what should be kept in mind is that practicing any form of procedure on either human or animal should entail some sort of licensing to ensure that the person(s) doing it were qualified and used proper procedures. Sterile equipment, antibiotics, anesthesia either local or general.

I would not want someone practicing any kind of medical procedure without some kind of licensing whether it be on humans or animals. I think this was the right call provided she was not licensed to perform such procedures.

In the case of tail docking, the breeders do it themselves or may have a vet do it:

"Docking of less than 10-14 days old puppies are routinely carried out by both breeders and veterinarians without anesthesia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_%28dog%29

Since the woman was doing the same thing and in the same manner dog breeders do then why would it be a crime? As far as I know breeders are not licensed to do the procedure. As far as ear piercing goes are you saying all those human ear piercings are done by a licensed medical person? I think as Will points out, someone was selectively applying the law.

From the wikipedia link you provided, from DEFRA...

1 The Council of Docked Breeds

1.1 The Council of Docked Breeds (CDB) was founded in 1991 as the successor to an earlier body, the Council for Docked Breeds, which was previously involved in negotiation with Government and other parties over amendments to legislation concerned with the docking of dogs' tails. The CDB has over 18,000 members who breed, own or support the customarily docked breeds.

1.2 The CDB's objective is to maintain the option of breeders to have their whelps legally docked. The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 requires that docking is carried out by a registered veterinary surgeon.

1.3 The CDB, through its contacts within the veterinary profession, provides advice to members on how they may have their litters docked, where necessary by placing them in contact with supportive registered veterinary surgeons. It represents the interests of breeders and owners of docked breeds, and where necessary it assists with the defence of lay persons or veterinarians who are unjustly accused in relation to legislation or regulations concerned with the docking of dogs' tails.

and further on...

3 Tail Docking

3.1 Docking is the customary or prophylactic shortening of the tail. The procedure is undertaken both in the case of farm animals and in dogs. The CDB concerns itself solely with the latter.

3.2 Docking of dogs' tails has been undertaken for many hundreds of years, and certainly since specific dogs have been line bred in order to perform specialised tasks, for example those related to hunting and herding. Sixteenth century illustrations quite clearly show docked spaniel-type dogs being used for hunting.

3.3 Prior to 1st July 1993 docking was normally carried out by experienced breeders. However, on that date an amendment to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 came into force making the docking of dogs' tails a veterinary surgical procedure. Thus all but registered veterinary surgeons were subsequently prevented from docking dogs' tails.

3.4 Docking may be carried out only by a registered veterinary surgeon, without any required anaesthesia, before a puppy's eyes are open, which normally occurs at 10-14 days of life. The earlier a puppy is docked the better, and many vets like to carry out the procedure before 3 days of age. However, in some small breeds it can be left until the pups have reached 5 days of age. Docking can involve a surgical excision or the placing of a specialised rubber band at the required length on the tail. The blood supply to the end of the tail is thus constricted, and the end of the tail comes away within about three days.

3.5 A veterinary surgeon, through his professional training and experience, will dock by the most efficient means, using aseptic technique and with the minimum of stress to the pups. It is also expected that the veterinary surgeon will competently advise the client on post-operative care. Untoward complications are rare.

3.6 In some breeds it is customary to remove a small part of the tail. In others, a greater portion is removed, leaving a relatively short tail.

3.7 It may be noted that the removal of dew claws (the dog's vestigial fifth claw) which is
generally undertaken at the same time as docking, remains outside the scope of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, and thus may still be carried out by lay persons. This is despite the widely held view that dew claw removal is a more serious and significant procedure than docking.

There is more, entire article here

woodchip wrote:1) Human babies get their ears pierced and no problems with parents being convicted of a crime.

Those are mexican babies. They don't count.

Ummm...Sheep, you are referring to a UK article and we all know how socialized medicine works over there.

Top Gun wrote:Animal testing has certain regulations that researchers generally have to abide by

If you have any sympathy for animals at all, even the tiniest smidgen, do NOT do any research on what the regulations allow for animal testing. It will make it hard to sleep at night. And thats just what's legal. What happens on a regular basis that the regulators simply ignore is far worse.

I'm NOT completely opposed to animal testing. But the way we treat animals is beyond cruel, even when it is necessary, and is often completely unnecessary.

woodchip wrote:Ummm...Sheep, you are referring to a UK article and we all know how socialized medicine works over there.

That was what the Wiki article was referencing so you started it!

Spidey wrote:That quote is out of context…the good deed that was punished, was changing her life…not what she did to the cats.

You missed the point and twisted what I said. (again)

I wasn't attempting to twist what you said, just pointing out that her past has no bearing on this case. It's great and all that she had turned her life around, but then she went and did something profoundly stupid, and got called on it. Should we give her a pass on this just because she had some drug problems at one point?

Don't quote me anymore.

Whoops.

Kilarin wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Animal testing has certain regulations that researchers generally have to abide by

If you have any sympathy for animals at all, even the tiniest smidgen, do NOT do any research on what the regulations allow for animal testing. It will make it hard to sleep at night. And thats just what's legal. What happens on a regular basis that the regulators simply ignore is far worse.

Yeah, I'll fully acknowledge that it's a really squicky business, and even a cursory reading of the Wiki article made me raise my eyebrows several times. I don't support the process when there's a clear, easily-accessible alternative, but I do acknowledge that there are certain aspects of medical research today that still require it.

It's 6:46a.m. and I think I just woke up the rest of the trailor court with my laughter when I read this.

They should come by on branding days.

Ear snips, vaccination tags, 5 and 8 point viral shots, antiparasitic soaking, shaving, branding, prod shocking, and the entire process just to get them into the chutes would make one of these guys cringe.

In fact, today is one of those days. Fun!

Don't forget de-horning. When I helped doing that the horns were cut then the hollow cavity was filled with a hot tar like material. And nope, no licensed vet present either. But what the hey, kittens are special.

woodchip wrote:Don't forget de-horning.

I wandered around back at the vet's once and happened on to a whole trailer of cattle being de-horned. Yikes! The cattle were wide eyed with terror to start with. Then they locked them into a head brace, took out these huge snippers and cut off the horns. The cattle SCREAMED as each horn was taken off. I would have assumed that cutting horn was like cutting your fingernails, but they were apparently cutting low enough to be into the "quick" because they bled quite a bit. After each horn was removed, the vet pulled out an arc welder and proceeded to cauterize the wound. More cattle screaming and now the incredibly strong smell of burnt horn.

Then it was the next cows turn.

I don't think I could make a good rancher (or vet). It was quite shocking to watch.

I really love how some of you guys are seemingly incapable of drawing distinctions between situations with different base characteristics. It makes trying to have a rational discussion so much fun.

I guess using cats for target practice is wrong then? Guess I'll just have to start feeding them to my dog. He's a cat lover too

Top Gun wrote:I really love how some of you guys are seemingly incapable of drawing distinctions between situations with different base characteristics. It makes trying to have a rational discussion so much fun.

Could you be a bit more specific? We are showing you that there is a lot more legal cruelty going on than simple ear piercing and tail docking.

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:I really love how some of you guys are seemingly incapable of drawing distinctions between situations with different base characteristics. It makes trying to have a rational discussion so much fun.

Could you be a bit more specific? We are showing you that there is a lot more legal cruelty going on than simple ear piercing and tail docking.

No, what you're showing is the lack of a distinction between the treatment of a 2000-pound animal whose sole purpose is to be fattened for slaughter, and the treatment of a 1-pound animal whose sole purpose is to be a pet. The law provides for different standards of treatment in these two situations, as it should. I don't really see how one can draw a valid comparison between the two.

Top Gun wrote:I really love how some of you guys are seemingly incapable of drawing distinctions between situations with different base characteristics. It makes trying to have a rational discussion so much fun.

And I love how some people conveniently see only the distinctions written in law if those distinctions happen to support their position and refuse to entertain the discussion that the law may be arbitrary and then claim they are the only one to have a rational point to make.

Top Gun wrote:No, what you're showing is the lack of a distinction between the treatment of a 2000-pound animal whose sole purpose is to be fattened for slaughter, and the treatment of a 1-pound animal whose sole purpose is to be a pet. The law provides for different standards of treatment in these two situations, as it should. I don't really see how one can draw a valid comparison between the two.

Why do humans get to define the sole purpose of an animal?

What is the ethical reasoning behind defending one from cruelty and not the other? If tomorrow the culture shifted and people started eating cats (like they already do in some parts of the world), would mistreating them no longer be cruel?

Back when Baby Fae was getting a baboon heart in a (failed) attempt to save her life, I thought it was simply bizarre to watch on TV as the protesters who had been marching outside the hospital with signs about how important it was to protect the life of the baboon, went over to McDonald's and had hamburgers for lunch.

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't think it's wrong for humans to kill animals. I DO think we should not cause unnecessary pain and suffering. That's why I'm opposed to the modern methods of raising chickens, for instance. But that does not mean that there aren't ways to raise chickens that are not cruel and inhumane.

I don't see why a chicken deserves any LESS protection than a cat. heck, some people keep chickens as pets.

Feed animals don’t feel pain, it’s a magic transformation.

Top Gun wrote:I really love how some of you guys are seemingly incapable of drawing distinctions between situations with different base characteristics. It makes trying to have a rational discussion so much fun.

The problem with always taking the high ground is that the air gets pretty thin after a while.