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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are always welcome.