The shaded Burmilla is agouti. The agouti varieties are called Asians. The jet black Burmese (a non-traditional colour) is called a Bombay.
From Genetics of the Burmilla Cat to Home page.
Friday, 12 February 2010
Genetics of the Burmilla Cat
The coat is short. There is a white undercoat, profusely shaded with tipping. The colours allowed for the Burmese are allowed for the Burmilla. The basic genotype is A-cbcbI- to which should be added the genes that create the colored varieties. The dominant gene: I, produces the white undercoat.
The shaded Burmilla is agouti. The agouti varieties are called Asians. The jet black Burmese (a non-traditional colour) is called a Bombay.
From Genetics of the Burmilla Cat to Home page.
The shaded Burmilla is agouti. The agouti varieties are called Asians. The jet black Burmese (a non-traditional colour) is called a Bombay.
From Genetics of the Burmilla Cat to Home page.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Declawing Cats: An International Viewpoint
It occurred to me today that there is an important international viewpoint to declawing cats that should not be overlooked. American is the home of declawing. Please note this is not a knock the USA dialogue, far from it. It is simply stating fact. I have no criticism of the Americans - none. We are all human!
America is both the home of declawing and the leading nation on the planet. Where they lead others follow, including the UK. And there are a number of fast developing nations such as India and China and indeed many more who are rapidly becoming westernised. Well China is not becoming westernised but it is becoming relatively wealthy.
It is not unreasonable to speculate that countries that are growing and becoming more integrated into the world economy might adapt the concept that declawing is something that is acceptable as, after all, the mighty USA do it.
In other words the leader should set a good example and they are categorically not doing that. They are setting a bad example. An example as to how not to relate to the domestic cat.
This is quite worrying because if veterinarians in say India get on the declawing gravy train now it will simply be the formation of another culture where the domestic cat is treated like an inanimate object to modify at will. At the moment places like India are a blank slate in terms of what is wrong about declawing. It is essential, I feel, that they learn the correct attitude to declawing to prevent it catching on.
Just a thought. Declawing cats has an international context.
From Declawing Cats: An International Viewpoint to Home Page
America is both the home of declawing and the leading nation on the planet. Where they lead others follow, including the UK. And there are a number of fast developing nations such as India and China and indeed many more who are rapidly becoming westernised. Well China is not becoming westernised but it is becoming relatively wealthy.
It is not unreasonable to speculate that countries that are growing and becoming more integrated into the world economy might adapt the concept that declawing is something that is acceptable as, after all, the mighty USA do it.
In other words the leader should set a good example and they are categorically not doing that. They are setting a bad example. An example as to how not to relate to the domestic cat.
This is quite worrying because if veterinarians in say India get on the declawing gravy train now it will simply be the formation of another culture where the domestic cat is treated like an inanimate object to modify at will. At the moment places like India are a blank slate in terms of what is wrong about declawing. It is essential, I feel, that they learn the correct attitude to declawing to prevent it catching on.
Just a thought. Declawing cats has an international context.
From Declawing Cats: An International Viewpoint to Home Page
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Piercing the bodies of cats is illegal but not declawing!
Yes, piercing the bodies of cats is illegal but not declawing! This raises some serious questions of the consistent application of the criminal laws of the USA. Here is the story.
A person decided to take three stray cats, make body piercings of the cats (modern thing this) in the ears, neck and tail.
She used sterilised equipment and did it carefully and without malice. The intention was to sell them as gothic kittens.
OK its sad and sick. Well it is from my standpoint. But why is she being prosecuted for animal cruelty when people who with the assistance of vets declaw their cats (a far more damaging process) and away get of scot free every time, millions of times?
We are talking about northeastern Pennsylvania but that is not really relevant.
I think the reason is this. She damaged a cat's tail in the process (actually see docked it). But the difference is very fine indeed between this and declawing cats.
In one article I say that declawing is deemed legal because the cat has no individual rights (and needs an advocate) but in this case the stray cats were adopted by the person concerned and therefore it could be argued that the person did it to her own cats. I do a follow up page on this here:
No laws against cat tail docking.
Is this any different to cat microchips that are implanted in the skin of cats? Some of these cats develop cancer and die.
Conclusion: She will not be found guilty although she should. It indicates the confused state of US animal cruelty laws in respect of declawing, in my view.
From Piercing the bodies of cats is illegal but not declawing! to Home Page
A person decided to take three stray cats, make body piercings of the cats (modern thing this) in the ears, neck and tail.
She used sterilised equipment and did it carefully and without malice. The intention was to sell them as gothic kittens.
OK its sad and sick. Well it is from my standpoint. But why is she being prosecuted for animal cruelty when people who with the assistance of vets declaw their cats (a far more damaging process) and away get of scot free every time, millions of times?
We are talking about northeastern Pennsylvania but that is not really relevant.
I think the reason is this. She damaged a cat's tail in the process (actually see docked it). But the difference is very fine indeed between this and declawing cats.
In one article I say that declawing is deemed legal because the cat has no individual rights (and needs an advocate) but in this case the stray cats were adopted by the person concerned and therefore it could be argued that the person did it to her own cats. I do a follow up page on this here:
No laws against cat tail docking.
Is this any different to cat microchips that are implanted in the skin of cats? Some of these cats develop cancer and die.
Conclusion: She will not be found guilty although she should. It indicates the confused state of US animal cruelty laws in respect of declawing, in my view.
From Piercing the bodies of cats is illegal but not declawing! to Home Page