This morning, Steve Allen, a celebrity radio presenter on LBC 97.3, a London based chat and call type radio show, joked about cat cruelty. He was referring to what was meant to be a jokey way of washing a cat (6 am on 11th Nov. 2011).
He said you wash your cat by putting it in the toilet covered in shampoo, close the toilet seat, sit on the seat and flush. The process cleans the cat and the toilet. Afterward, you open the seat and the cat races outside terrified and dries off naturally.
Really funny Stevie. You are encouraging people to do that because a lot of people like your show. Personally I don't like your show; partly because you are always saying people are stupid.
I think you are being stupid yourself in indirectly promoting what can only be a form of cat cruelty. I can see one of you fans trying it out. A person who did this would be committing a crime under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is very similar to the case of the bank worker who casually dumped a cat into a wheelie bin in full sight of a security camera.
It is pretty clear to me that Steve Allen dislikes cats as he almost condoned a much publicized act of cat cruelty yesterday (youth swings cat by tail). Perhaps Steve is just trying to jazz up his boring show. If that is the case he is being stupid because he is on the edge of committing a crime himself.
In this video he is the person on the left.
Showing posts with label animal abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animal abuse. Show all posts
Friday, 11 November 2011
Saturday, 5 November 2011
Why do people hurt cats?
Why do people hurt cats? This is a big question. There are no clean, simple, straightforward answers to this sort of question. I would welcome opinions in comments. In the meantime I will provide my opinion for what it is worth.
Perpetuation
We should recognize the way animal abuse is perpetuated by generations of people in the same family. Children learn by observation from fathers and mothers. Children and their children are likely to perpetuate animal abuse.
Anger
Angry people might express and direct their anger at animals. A lot of us are angry about society at some time or another. Some people are more angry than others and possibly angry all the time. This may be borne out of abuse against them. Or neglect from parents. That sort of thing. A child or young adult might wish to express that anger verbally (short temper) and in actions that are violent. One such action might be a form of retaliation against society. A vulnerable target will be a companion animal. The domestic cat is particularly susceptible to attack by a violent individual. In hurting a cat, the angry person dissipates some anger and as a consequence feels happier. This is why they like hurting cats.
Disconnect
People are becoming increasingly disconnected from nature. This engenders a lack of respect for animals. It is the "it's only a cat" mentality. That mentality makes it easier to abuse a cat because disconnected people don't have empathy for the cat's emotions and senses.
Superiority
A lot of cultures either western or Asian consider animals as lesser creatures whose sole purpose is to serve the superior human. The world is for the use of humans. Use it as you will. This culture leads to an abuse of the world's natural resources, nature, the environment and cats. It supports animal abuse in an indirect way.
Fetish
Crush videos are a cult fetish that is a controlled expression of a desire to hurt cats and cute animals. Hurting cute animals is more potent than hurting other animals because cuteness is a human and superficial concept. It represents the human condition and the perpetrator wants to hit out at society.
Associated Pages
Selected pages (there are hundreds more on PoC - please search - go to home page)
Perpetuation
We should recognize the way animal abuse is perpetuated by generations of people in the same family. Children learn by observation from fathers and mothers. Children and their children are likely to perpetuate animal abuse.
Anger
Angry people might express and direct their anger at animals. A lot of us are angry about society at some time or another. Some people are more angry than others and possibly angry all the time. This may be borne out of abuse against them. Or neglect from parents. That sort of thing. A child or young adult might wish to express that anger verbally (short temper) and in actions that are violent. One such action might be a form of retaliation against society. A vulnerable target will be a companion animal. The domestic cat is particularly susceptible to attack by a violent individual. In hurting a cat, the angry person dissipates some anger and as a consequence feels happier. This is why they like hurting cats.
Disconnect
People are becoming increasingly disconnected from nature. This engenders a lack of respect for animals. It is the "it's only a cat" mentality. That mentality makes it easier to abuse a cat because disconnected people don't have empathy for the cat's emotions and senses.
Superiority
A lot of cultures either western or Asian consider animals as lesser creatures whose sole purpose is to serve the superior human. The world is for the use of humans. Use it as you will. This culture leads to an abuse of the world's natural resources, nature, the environment and cats. It supports animal abuse in an indirect way.
Fetish
Crush videos are a cult fetish that is a controlled expression of a desire to hurt cats and cute animals. Hurting cute animals is more potent than hurting other animals because cuteness is a human and superficial concept. It represents the human condition and the perpetrator wants to hit out at society.
Associated Pages
Selected pages (there are hundreds more on PoC - please search - go to home page)
- Cat abuse - contains links to more as well.
- Pictures of animal abuse
- Declawing - for me this is cat abuse.
Friday, 28 October 2011
Set a Cat on Fire
Cats are resilient and forgiving. They don't hold grudges even when a person or persons set a cat on fire. This is not that unusual. What I mean is that cruelty to cats and animals generally is not that unusual. It is often young people who do it. The horrible thing is that the person or persons who did this (see video below) wanted to be cruel to an animal and chose to set it on fire! Or did they actually realise that they were being cruel? Did they feel the pain or have empathy with the cat. What I mean is could they relate to the pain and distress that they were causing? I don't think they did.
In short, I don't think the people who did this really appreciated the significance of what they were doing. I think it is worth looking at the kind of person who would do this. The profile of the cat is totally predicable. We know what the cat is like - accepting of what happened, asking no questions but feeling acute discomfort with the possibility of succumbing to the injury. I am not sure at the time of writing this how the cat progressed. There was the possibility of infections despite the fact that he looks pretty calm about it all.
My thoughts are that the people who did this could be sociopaths. Sociopaths are people who are not able to empathize with the pain of their victims. If they are teenagers, then it will probably be a fixed trait. They will probably go on to do more of the same and the victim could be a person. Not that a person is any more or less important, for me, than a cat.
As to being an outdoor cat, Puppy, as the cat was called, was a wanderer. Should people let their cats wander? It looks like it is a bad idea. We have created a world that is potentially hostile to the cat as the domestic cat is very vulnerable particularly when it has suffered declawing as it cannot defend itself when outside. See for example: Serval Cat Escapes.
From Set a Cat on Fire to Home Page
In short, I don't think the people who did this really appreciated the significance of what they were doing. I think it is worth looking at the kind of person who would do this. The profile of the cat is totally predicable. We know what the cat is like - accepting of what happened, asking no questions but feeling acute discomfort with the possibility of succumbing to the injury. I am not sure at the time of writing this how the cat progressed. There was the possibility of infections despite the fact that he looks pretty calm about it all.
My thoughts are that the people who did this could be sociopaths. Sociopaths are people who are not able to empathize with the pain of their victims. If they are teenagers, then it will probably be a fixed trait. They will probably go on to do more of the same and the victim could be a person. Not that a person is any more or less important, for me, than a cat.
Sociopaths can also be called psychopaths. Of many antisocial traits they, suffer from, "early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency. Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc." - www.mcafee.cc (this linked page provides a full profile - opens in new window)What else is of note about this incidence? Two things, it seems. The owners let the cat be an outdoors cat and they had to give the cat up to an human society as they could not afford the $2,000 vets bill. I wonder if either the vet or the human society could have done something about that?
As to being an outdoor cat, Puppy, as the cat was called, was a wanderer. Should people let their cats wander? It looks like it is a bad idea. We have created a world that is potentially hostile to the cat as the domestic cat is very vulnerable particularly when it has suffered declawing as it cannot defend itself when outside. See for example: Serval Cat Escapes.
From Set a Cat on Fire to Home Page
Monday, 4 April 2011
Iams Cat Food
 |
| Nothing to do with Iams Cat Food! Photo by seanmcgrath (Flickr) Great cat portrait |
We should not buy Iams cat food because Procter and Gamble (P&C) own Iams and P&C conduct animal testing on cats and dogs in pet food research. These tests are cruel and harmful to the animals, it is said. Any animal testing even at its most benign is cruel as far as I am concerned and it should all be banned.
There is no need to animal test to improve pet food. What is extraordinary is that although I abhor animal testing of all kinds and particularly for cosmetics and pet food, I have two packets of Iams dry cat food in the kitchen that I bought online. It is a question of availability and convenience for us. The big manufacturers seem to be the ones that are most likely to be guilty of animal testing and it is their products that are the easiest to buy.
However, I am ashamed of myself. I will not buy Iams cat food again. In any case my cats are not that fond of it. They prefer Hills dry cat food. I buy Hills light for them. But do Hills animal test? Probably.
How do I know that Iams animal test? There are a number of trusted websites that have detailed information about it.
 |
| Express Story |
The other site that I would like to mention is IamsCruelty.com. Yes, this is an entire website dedicated to animal testing by Iams! This is a link: Animals suffer at Iams.
Iams cruel animal testing was reported on by the Sunday Express (journalist: Lucy Johnson).
So we have good evidence. Knowing this we really must steel ourselves and not buy Iams cat food.
There are many alternatives. Which pet food manufacturers do not animal test? The Iams Cruelty.com website list the companies/businesses that they are confident do not animal test. This is the link: Brands that do no test on animals.Hills are not listed as not testing! Well, if that is the case I'll have to change. The list relates to north American brands by the way.
One of the best canned cat foods on my reckoning is Newmans. Newman’s Own Organics are a brand who don't animal test apparently. Maybe we should buy Newmans?
The best dry cat food in America on my assessment is Innova EVO Dry Cat Food. Do they animal test? As far as I can tell, Natura Pet Products are the parent company. Neither Natura nor Innova are on the list of pet food manufacturers who IamsCruely.com can say for sure do not animal test. On that basis they animal test.
This is confirmed on another site: The Natura Pet Products policy on animal testing.
They say they prefer to animal test. The company "believes strongly in the importance of nutritional testing". But they are concerned animal testers and the testing in non-invasive and they say it only includes animals eating their products.
That said, the animals are in a facility, albeit a nice facility. They live unnatural lives and are probably stressed at least at some point and their lives are unnatural which is diametrically opposite to the brand name, "Natura Pet Products" indicating "natural pet products".
It is a shame that Natura Pet Products animal test because their Innova brand dry cat food is pretty well universally acclaimed as the best.
It seems that it is not that easy to avoid buying from an animal testing company. We should make the effort, however. Don't by Iams cat food, please. You can't feed your cat knowing that another cat in a cage in a nasty research facility has been tested on and is probably frightened and possibly abused. Note: legally no wrong has been done in animal testing to improve pet food.
Iams Cat Food -- Associated Pages:
- Facts on Animal Testing
- Purina Pet Cat Food - involved in animal testing.
- Animal Testing Facts | Product Labelling
- Animal Testing for Cosmetics
- Animal Testing in Cosmetics
From Iams Cat Food to Home Page
Note: the rational for publishing the picture of the Sunday Times under fair use is that it is very small and has no impact on the commerce of the Sunday Express, indeed it promotes it.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
USA Cities Must Ban Declawing
USA Cities Must Ban Declawing -- In the following linked article I urged people to oppose California Bill SB 762. Well, as I thought it, has been passed by the Californian government and signed off by the governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It passed the Assembly recently on a 59-6 vote. Earlier it passed the Senate, 31-6. This is a pretty conclusive vote for the bill. The problem is that the politicians are rather short sighted. On the face of it Bill SB 762 looked OK. The idea was to ensure uniformity of legislation and regulations concerning the professions throughout California and to stop local legislators such as the wise men and women of West Hollywood enacting laws that regulated a profession at a local level, in this case veterinarians who wantonly declaw in breach of ethics and against the interests of the patient.
But the successful ban in West Hollywood meant that there were different rules across the state. The important point that the politicians who passed Bill SB 762 didn't recognise is that the ban at West Hollywood is the right law.
Bill SB 762 (is it now an Act, I am not sure) comes into force on January 1st 2010. This allows a shortish window of opportunity for any other city or municipality to enact new legislation along the lines of West Hollywood's ban. One such city is San Francisco who have shown an intention to do this. The San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare recommended to the Board of Supervisors that they should enact legislation that bans declawing in the city for non-therapeutic purposes.
To an outsider like me it is shocking and bizarre that these local bans are so slow to be enacted. It is obvious that declawing should be banned when it is for the convenience of the cat's owner and when the veterinarian associations fail to act to curb their veterinarians. How complicated is it?
Anyway, all cities who have been thinking of banning declawing for non-therapeutic purposes need to get their skates on. Over to you guys....USA Cities Must Ban Declawing in my opinion.
See: Declawing Cats for lots of links and comment on this provocative subject.
From USA Cities Must Ban Declawing to Home Page
But the successful ban in West Hollywood meant that there were different rules across the state. The important point that the politicians who passed Bill SB 762 didn't recognise is that the ban at West Hollywood is the right law.
Bill SB 762 (is it now an Act, I am not sure) comes into force on January 1st 2010. This allows a shortish window of opportunity for any other city or municipality to enact new legislation along the lines of West Hollywood's ban. One such city is San Francisco who have shown an intention to do this. The San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare recommended to the Board of Supervisors that they should enact legislation that bans declawing in the city for non-therapeutic purposes.
To an outsider like me it is shocking and bizarre that these local bans are so slow to be enacted. It is obvious that declawing should be banned when it is for the convenience of the cat's owner and when the veterinarian associations fail to act to curb their veterinarians. How complicated is it?
Anyway, all cities who have been thinking of banning declawing for non-therapeutic purposes need to get their skates on. Over to you guys....USA Cities Must Ban Declawing in my opinion.
See: Declawing Cats for lots of links and comment on this provocative subject.
From USA Cities Must Ban Declawing to Home Page
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
A Cat Hater and Shooter
I have just found a bona fide American cat hater and shooter. Here he is in a video made by a friend by the look of it. There are cat haters the world over. But the lax American gun laws means that there is probably a greater likelihood of an American shooting a cat than in Europe. Australia is similar to America it seems on shooting cats as it is legal and encouraged in some states (Ground Shooting of Feral Cats). In the UK it is rarely done and illegal although there are airgun attacks and too many of them.
Please note: This posting is not an attack on America or the American people. That might be obvious. But a criticism of an individual who is a danger to cats. It is also a criticism of irresponsible cat ownership. I like America but everything that goes on there is not good. The same applies to all countries. This site always supports the cat and looks at the world from that standpoint.
This person has an air rifle or spring rifle. He proudly shows off to the camera how skilled he is with it. If you can understand him, he constantly says how he would like to shoot a cat, how he hates cats and how he has kicked a cat. He seems to hate a lot of things and takes pleasure in venting that hatred out on cats.
There an overriding sense from this video that he is your classic cat hating shooter! It is all that ignorance and violence coming out in front of the camera.
What he completely fails to understand is that it is irresponsible people like him who create the feral cat problem. The cat is simply the innocent pawn or victim in the casual carelessness of so many people who lack a moral compass and even simple common sense.
If he loves to shoot things including cats, he should shoot the perpetrators of irresponsible behaviour. I would hope that the person he shoots at is missed and shoots back. Maybe there would be an outcome beneficial to humanity and the victimised cat:
Backyard - The most amazing bloopers are here
This scruffy fool is a cat hater and shooter and I was keen to see one; to put a face to some people (a lot as far as I can see) who write on the forums about shooting cats. I have just read a forum on metafilter.com about shooting cats. It was a long dialogue, a ramble between, mostly, people who could justify shooting cats. And one even admitted to doing it and getting pleasure from it! He should be reported to the police but would they do anything? Of course not.
There are many aggressive and silly males who like to shoot cats. They justify it with all manner of wild and rash argument that is completely unsubstantiated such as they kill millions of birds. There is precious little scientific data on the impact of feral cats, or any cats, on bird populations. Scientific data points more to ground animals being killed as it is easier prey. Any excuse to kill a cat, it seems.
There is no doubt that many people, often the ignorant, who hate cats. It really is borne out of ignorance and training; being trained by a father and mother who were equally ignorant and so perpetuating this violence.
From A Cat Hater and Shooter to Home Page
Please note: This posting is not an attack on America or the American people. That might be obvious. But a criticism of an individual who is a danger to cats. It is also a criticism of irresponsible cat ownership. I like America but everything that goes on there is not good. The same applies to all countries. This site always supports the cat and looks at the world from that standpoint.
This person has an air rifle or spring rifle. He proudly shows off to the camera how skilled he is with it. If you can understand him, he constantly says how he would like to shoot a cat, how he hates cats and how he has kicked a cat. He seems to hate a lot of things and takes pleasure in venting that hatred out on cats.
There an overriding sense from this video that he is your classic cat hating shooter! It is all that ignorance and violence coming out in front of the camera.
What he completely fails to understand is that it is irresponsible people like him who create the feral cat problem. The cat is simply the innocent pawn or victim in the casual carelessness of so many people who lack a moral compass and even simple common sense.
If he loves to shoot things including cats, he should shoot the perpetrators of irresponsible behaviour. I would hope that the person he shoots at is missed and shoots back. Maybe there would be an outcome beneficial to humanity and the victimised cat:
Backyard - The most amazing bloopers are here
This scruffy fool is a cat hater and shooter and I was keen to see one; to put a face to some people (a lot as far as I can see) who write on the forums about shooting cats. I have just read a forum on metafilter.com about shooting cats. It was a long dialogue, a ramble between, mostly, people who could justify shooting cats. And one even admitted to doing it and getting pleasure from it! He should be reported to the police but would they do anything? Of course not.
There are many aggressive and silly males who like to shoot cats. They justify it with all manner of wild and rash argument that is completely unsubstantiated such as they kill millions of birds. There is precious little scientific data on the impact of feral cats, or any cats, on bird populations. Scientific data points more to ground animals being killed as it is easier prey. Any excuse to kill a cat, it seems.
There is no doubt that many people, often the ignorant, who hate cats. It really is borne out of ignorance and training; being trained by a father and mother who were equally ignorant and so perpetuating this violence.
From A Cat Hater and Shooter to Home Page
Monday, 13 July 2009
Tenectomy or tendonectomy on Cats
Performing a tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats is a cynical way for American veterinarians to wriggle around the impossible moral difficulties that they face when carrying out the brutal and unnecessary declawing procedure.
Declawing is big in America. It is simply big business (about $20 billion on my estimate) and it is that which drives vets to do it. But despite all the feeble attempts to justify what is cosmetic surgery for the benefit of the cat owner (and to dress it up otherwise is nonsense) declawing is a problem for vets. Some even refuse to do it! I am shocked!
On the basis that declawing does present moral questions for a small percentage of American veterinarians they had to devise an alternative that seemed more acceptable to the public. A procedure that repackaged the process but which still brought in those precious dollars.
And they came up with the procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats (it can be performed on other animals). This procedure is defined as "the surgical resection of part of a tendon". Notice the jargon of the word, "resection". Resection means, "the partial or complete removal of an organ or other bodily structure". In other words the procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats is the cutting and removal of a part of the tendon of the cat which in turn is part of the mechanism that controls the extension (flexing) of the cat's claws.
In removing this piece of the cat's anatomy the cat's claws cannot be retracted (drawn in) and are rendered almost useless, as I understand it. The after effects are as high as for declawing (although this is still work in progress it would seem). Incidentally, the level of short-term after surgery complications for declawing is not as low as some vets make out. They can be as high as 50% and in the long term as high as 20% "Feline Onychectomy at a Teaching Institution: A Retrospective Study of 163 Cases," Veterinary Surgery, Vol. 23, no. 4 (July-August 1994): 274-280). My thanks to this website: catclinicofnorman.com.
The procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats is becoming increasingly common. The cat owner will need to trim and maintain the cat's claws regularly after the operation. I wonder whether they do bearing in mind that a request to carry out this procedure is likely to come from people who are not that inclined to devote a lot of time to their cat? This may result in more health problems for the cat.
As the procedure is newish there have been no long term analysis as to its effects on cat welfare. On that basis alone it should not be carried out or recommended by veterinarians and in any case it is the same story. A wholly unnecessary surgical procedure that is prohibited under the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (note: the procedure is not referred to by name as it is new but is still covered by the convention under Art 10 as it is non-curative and totally unnecessary in respect of benefit to the animal).
Article 10 – Surgical operations
Further reading:
From Tenectomy or tendonectomy on Cats to Home Page
On the basis that declawing does present moral questions for a small percentage of American veterinarians they had to devise an alternative that seemed more acceptable to the public. A procedure that repackaged the process but which still brought in those precious dollars.
And they came up with the procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats (it can be performed on other animals). This procedure is defined as "the surgical resection of part of a tendon". Notice the jargon of the word, "resection". Resection means, "the partial or complete removal of an organ or other bodily structure". In other words the procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats is the cutting and removal of a part of the tendon of the cat which in turn is part of the mechanism that controls the extension (flexing) of the cat's claws.
In removing this piece of the cat's anatomy the cat's claws cannot be retracted (drawn in) and are rendered almost useless, as I understand it. The after effects are as high as for declawing (although this is still work in progress it would seem). Incidentally, the level of short-term after surgery complications for declawing is not as low as some vets make out. They can be as high as 50% and in the long term as high as 20% "Feline Onychectomy at a Teaching Institution: A Retrospective Study of 163 Cases," Veterinary Surgery, Vol. 23, no. 4 (July-August 1994): 274-280). My thanks to this website: catclinicofnorman.com.
The procedure of tenectomy or tendonectomy on cats is becoming increasingly common. The cat owner will need to trim and maintain the cat's claws regularly after the operation. I wonder whether they do bearing in mind that a request to carry out this procedure is likely to come from people who are not that inclined to devote a lot of time to their cat? This may result in more health problems for the cat.
As the procedure is newish there have been no long term analysis as to its effects on cat welfare. On that basis alone it should not be carried out or recommended by veterinarians and in any case it is the same story. A wholly unnecessary surgical procedure that is prohibited under the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (note: the procedure is not referred to by name as it is new but is still covered by the convention under Art 10 as it is non-curative and totally unnecessary in respect of benefit to the animal).
Article 10 – Surgical operations
- Surgical operations for the purpose of modifying the appearance of a pet animal or for other non-curative purposes shall be prohibited and, in particular:
- the docking of tails;
- the cropping of ears;
- devocalisation;
- declawing and defanging;
- Exceptions to these prohibitions shall be permitted only:
- if a veterinarian considers non-curative procedures necessary either for veterinary medical reasons or for the benefit of any particular animal;
- to prevent reproduction.
Further reading:
From Tenectomy or tendonectomy on Cats to Home Page
Sunday, 12 July 2009
AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats
The AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats is shameful and deplorable. It is criminality transformed into normality through deep seated denial and deceit. It is made all the worse by the fact that this association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, professes to uphold the highest standards of professional behavior. The criminality is perpetrated by the pillars of American society, the ever reliable, homely and charming veterinary surgeon. To quote the AVMA, "Veterinarians are members of a scholarly profession who have earned academic degrees from comprehensive universities or similar educational institutions." On their AVMATV webpage they have a logo that reads:
Please note: this is a duplicate of another identical post. This post was made by some computer glitch! I have no idea what happened. Sorry if any confusion has or will be caused. I can't delete it as Google finds them both depending on the search terms.
Yes, I agree. It is a lot more than we think. In respect of declawing of cats it is criminal behavior dressed up as a professional health service. There is little doubt that it is a crime under animal cruelty laws but no one is every prosecuted. It is also a lot more than the vets think because a lot of them as mentioned seem to be in denial at what they are doing. This denial is a creation of years and years of subtle psychology that the vets and organisers of the AVMA have practiced on themselves and employees of veterinary surgeries. Even the name of the procedure is a deception: "declawing", when it is, in fact, the removal of the tips of all the fingers of cat. New laser surgery is probably sold as being "almost painless" with "quick recovery times". "Your cat will up on his feet in no time" the cosy vet says. Always denying that the whole thing is quite unnecessary and shockingly cruel from the patient's point of view. I sometimes wonder if the vet thinks the patient, is the client. The client being the person who comes in and says, "I need a declaw, I can pop in next Tuesday". Vet's answer, "That's fine Mrs Doe, have a nice day..."
The language of the veterinary surgeon is designed to disengage the veterinarian and the staff from what is a grievous assault on an innocent animal that looks to us and depends on us for its care and wellbeing. The procedure is described as follows:
The first sentence of the clause says that if a cat (for example) damages a piece of furniture and the owner can't stop it happening, the cat can then be declawed. That is what it says. If the owner comes to a vet and says, "Mr Vet, I've tried to stop my cat scratching my new furniture but it hasn't worked, please declaw him". The vet can under this AVMA policy on declawing cats, say, "Yes, fine". It is an open invitation to cat owners who do not know better to get their way against the interests of the cat. When people adopt a cat, they know there will be some damage. So, declawing will be on the cards before the cat gets home. It is nothing less than an open invitation to declaw. It should be a barrier. In fact, it blatantly contradicts the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics of the AVMA on the same website (see my posting on this: American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat), which states, "Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient....". The AVMA policy on declawing pursuant to this statement considers first the client (the cat's owner).
As to the second sentence this refers to the transmission of disease from cat to human (zoonotic diseases). All cats present this risk but it is an extremely tiny risk. So under the AVMA policy on declawing cats all and any cat can be declawed. Once again it presents an open door to an assault on the cat. If people are worried about their furniture or the extremely rare risk of contracting a zoonotic disease they should not keep cats. We should not customise the anatomy of cats. We do not customise children beause they bring colds back from school or damage the furniture. A further point; a cat's teeth can transmit zoonotic disease: Declawing, why not detoothing as well?
Another, perhaps overlooked, point about the above clause is that is refers to, "domestic cats". It is clearly open season on tame wild cats and there are many Servals, for instance, that are automatically declawed because they are a big cat. Some escape their unsuitable conditions and are killed because they have no defense. See Serval Cat Escapes.
If this leading clause were to be written in compliance with the American Veterinary Medical Associations code of ethics it might read like this:
The AVMA policy on declawing cats is an example of American short-term thinking. I mean policies that seek to create immediate benefit at any cost while disregarding the future consequences. It is a reflection of the consumer society. However, far greater financial benefit would be accrued in the long term if a truly ethical approach was adopted by the AVMA as it would encourage people to see a vet who currently resist because of cost and distrust. It would also mean that cats were treated earlier. Many cats are probably suffering indirectly through the AVMA's policy as people stay away from veterinarian's surgeries.
The AVMA policy on declawing cats should be redrafted and while that was happening the code of ethics should be properly policed as numerous vets in its association are flagrantly in breach of its policies (see this website for example: The Declaw Hall of Shame). The AVMA must lead in the interests of the cat and all animals as that is the underlying reason for its existence.
Please Note: I like America and Americans but strongly dislike the acceptance by many Americans of the declawing of cats.
Update: I have been reliably told that the AVMA has no authority over the veterinarians in their association. Can this be true? And if so what it the point of the AVMA? How are rogue vets dealt with?
Please note: this is a duplicate of another identical post. This post was made by some computer glitch! I have no idea what happened. Sorry if any confusion has or will be caused. I can't delete it as Google finds them both depending on the search terms.
Yes, I agree. It is a lot more than we think. In respect of declawing of cats it is criminal behavior dressed up as a professional health service. There is little doubt that it is a crime under animal cruelty laws but no one is every prosecuted. It is also a lot more than the vets think because a lot of them as mentioned seem to be in denial at what they are doing. This denial is a creation of years and years of subtle psychology that the vets and organisers of the AVMA have practiced on themselves and employees of veterinary surgeries. Even the name of the procedure is a deception: "declawing", when it is, in fact, the removal of the tips of all the fingers of cat. New laser surgery is probably sold as being "almost painless" with "quick recovery times". "Your cat will up on his feet in no time" the cosy vet says. Always denying that the whole thing is quite unnecessary and shockingly cruel from the patient's point of view. I sometimes wonder if the vet thinks the patient, is the client. The client being the person who comes in and says, "I need a declaw, I can pop in next Tuesday". Vet's answer, "That's fine Mrs Doe, have a nice day..."
The language of the veterinary surgeon is designed to disengage the veterinarian and the staff from what is a grievous assault on an innocent animal that looks to us and depends on us for its care and wellbeing. The procedure is described as follows:
"The claw is extended by pushing up under the footpad or by grasping it with Allis tissue forceps. A scalpel blade is used to sharply dissect between the second and third phalanx over the top of the ungual crest. The distal interphalangeal joint is disarticulated, and the deep digital flexor tendon is incised. . . . Both techniques effectively remove the entire third phalanx" [this means the amputation of the distal phalanx or part of the toe]In plain language this procedure is:
The removal, with a knife, of the top joint from all the toes of the cat.The language of denial and disengagement does not stop there. It is everywhere in the American Veterinarian's literature. Take the AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats. The following heads the page on the AVMA website:
Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when its clawing presents a zoonotic risk for its owner(s) {revised 04/2009}This clause, as I said is the header clause and the clause that underpins the whole policy actively encourages declawing when it should do the opposite. It is an attempt to ease the guilt of the AVMA by pretending that they have a policy on declawing. These are my concerns with this defective clause:
The first sentence of the clause says that if a cat (for example) damages a piece of furniture and the owner can't stop it happening, the cat can then be declawed. That is what it says. If the owner comes to a vet and says, "Mr Vet, I've tried to stop my cat scratching my new furniture but it hasn't worked, please declaw him". The vet can under this AVMA policy on declawing cats, say, "Yes, fine". It is an open invitation to cat owners who do not know better to get their way against the interests of the cat. When people adopt a cat, they know there will be some damage. So, declawing will be on the cards before the cat gets home. It is nothing less than an open invitation to declaw. It should be a barrier. In fact, it blatantly contradicts the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics of the AVMA on the same website (see my posting on this: American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat), which states, "Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient....". The AVMA policy on declawing pursuant to this statement considers first the client (the cat's owner).
As to the second sentence this refers to the transmission of disease from cat to human (zoonotic diseases). All cats present this risk but it is an extremely tiny risk. So under the AVMA policy on declawing cats all and any cat can be declawed. Once again it presents an open door to an assault on the cat. If people are worried about their furniture or the extremely rare risk of contracting a zoonotic disease they should not keep cats. We should not customise the anatomy of cats. We do not customise children beause they bring colds back from school or damage the furniture. A further point; a cat's teeth can transmit zoonotic disease: Declawing, why not detoothing as well?
Another, perhaps overlooked, point about the above clause is that is refers to, "domestic cats". It is clearly open season on tame wild cats and there are many Servals, for instance, that are automatically declawed because they are a big cat. Some escape their unsuitable conditions and are killed because they have no defense. See Serval Cat Escapes.
If this leading clause were to be written in compliance with the American Veterinary Medical Associations code of ethics it might read like this:
"Declawing of all cats must not be carried out unless it is under the most serious and unlikiest of conditions and where it is exclusively in the best interests of the cat's health and wellbeing. It is considered by the board of the AVMA that these circumstances will only very rarely apply. The reasons for carrying out the operation must comply with the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics.That clause is in the best interests of the patient. As I mention on the Americans are Unethical Towards the Cat posting, the reason why the AVMA has drafted such an open clause is to present to the world "concern" while actually promoting declawing. The clause contains "weasel words". These are words or phrases that are intended to say one thing while the true intention is to do or promote something else. Politicans use them frequently.
The AVMA policy on declawing cats is an example of American short-term thinking. I mean policies that seek to create immediate benefit at any cost while disregarding the future consequences. It is a reflection of the consumer society. However, far greater financial benefit would be accrued in the long term if a truly ethical approach was adopted by the AVMA as it would encourage people to see a vet who currently resist because of cost and distrust. It would also mean that cats were treated earlier. Many cats are probably suffering indirectly through the AVMA's policy as people stay away from veterinarian's surgeries.
The AVMA policy on declawing cats should be redrafted and while that was happening the code of ethics should be properly policed as numerous vets in its association are flagrantly in breach of its policies (see this website for example: The Declaw Hall of Shame). The AVMA must lead in the interests of the cat and all animals as that is the underlying reason for its existence.
Please Note: I like America and Americans but strongly dislike the acceptance by many Americans of the declawing of cats.
Update: I have been reliably told that the AVMA has no authority over the veterinarians in their association. Can this be true? And if so what it the point of the AVMA? How are rogue vets dealt with?
AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats
The AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats is shameful and deplorable. It is criminality transformed into normality through deep seated denial and deceit. It is made all the worse by the fact that this association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, profess to uphold the highest standards of professional behavior. The criminality is perpetrated by the pillars of American society, the ever reliable, homely and charming veterinary surgeon. To quote the AVMA, "Veterinarians are members of a scholarly profession who have earned academic degrees from comprehensive universities or similar educational institutions." On their AVMATV webpage they have a logo that reads:
Yes, I agree. It is a lot more than we think. In respect of declawing of cats it is criminal behavior dressed up as a professional health service. It is also a lot more than you (the vets) think because a lot of them, as mentioned, seem to be in denial at what they are doing. This denial is a creation of years and years of subtle psychology that the vets and organisers of the AVMA have practiced on themselves and employees of veterinary surgeries. Even the name of the procedure is a deception: "declawing", when it is, in fact, the removal of the tips of all the fingers of the cat (usually the front). New laser surgery is probably sold as being "almost painless" with "quick recovery times". "Your cat will be up on his feet in no time" the cosy vet says. Always denying that the whole thing is quite unnecessary (when done for the usual non-therapeutic reasons) and shockingly cruel from the patient's point of view. I sometimes wonder if the vet thinks the patient is the client. The client being the person who comes in and says, "I need a declaw, I can pop in next Tuesday". Vet's answer, "That's fine Mrs Doe, have a nice day..."
See an umbrella page on cat declawing where there are more links etc.: Declawing Cats
The language of the veterinary surgeon is designed to disengage the veterinarian and the staff from what is a grievous assault on an innocent animal that looks to us and depends on us for its care and well being. The procedure is described as follows:
The first sentence of the clause says that if a cat, for exampe, damages a piece of furniture and the owner can't stop it, the cat can be declawed. If the owner comes to a vet and says, "Mr Vet, I've tried to stop my cat scratching my new furniture but it hasn't worked, please declaw him". The vet can under this AVMA policy on declawing cats, say, "Yes, fine". It is an open invitation to cat owners who do not know better to get their way against the interests of the cat. When people adopt a cat they know there will be some damage. So declawing will be on the cards before the cat gets home. It is nothing less than an open invitation to declaw. It should be a barrier. In fact it blatantly contradicts the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics of the AVMA on the same website (see my posting on this: American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat), which states, "Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient....". The AVMA policy on declawing persuant to this statment considers first the client (the cat's owner).
As to the second sentence this refers to the transmission of disease from cat to human (zoonotic diseases). All cats present this exceptionally slight risk. But once again it opens the door wide to mutilation because under the AVMA policy on declawing cats all and any cat can be declawed. Once again it presents an open door to an assault on the cat. If people are worried about their furniture or the extremely rare risk of contracting a zoonotic disease they should not keep cats. We should not customise the anatomy of cats. We do not customise children beause they bring colds back from school or damage the furniture. A further point; a cat's teeth can transmit zoonotic disease: Declawing, why not detoothing as well?
Another, perhaps overlooked, point about the above clause is that is refers to, "domestic cats". It is clearly open season on tame wild cats and there are many Servals, for instance, that are automatically declawed because they are a big cat. Some escape their unsuitable conditions and are killed because they have no defense. See Serval Cat Escapes.
If this leading clause were to be written in compliance with the American Veterinary Medical Associations code of ethics it might read like this:
The AVMA policy on declawing cats is an example of American short term thinking. I mean policies that seek to create immediate benefit at any cost while disregarding the future consequences. It is a reflection of the consumer society. However, far greater financial benefit would be accrued in the long term if a truly ethical approach was adopted by the AVMA as it would encourage people to see a vet who currently resist seeing a vet because of the cost and distrust. It would also mean that cats were treated earlier. Many cats are probably suffering indirectly through the AVMA's policy as people stay away from veterinarian's surgeries to avoid getting into the clutches of a financially greedy vet and any veterianrian who declaws cats for non-therapeutic reasons is greedy.
The AVMA policy on declawing cats should be redrafted and while that was happening the code of ethics should be properly policed as numerous vets in its association are flagrantly in breach of its policies (see this website for example: The Declaw Hall of Shame). The AVMA must lead in the interests of the cat and all animals as that is the underlying reason for its existence. It is time that the AVMA served the interests of the cat not their wallet nor the callous cat owner requesting declawing.
Further valuable reading.
See an umbrella page on cat declawing where there are more links etc.: Declawing Cats
The language of the veterinary surgeon is designed to disengage the veterinarian and the staff from what is a grievous assault on an innocent animal that looks to us and depends on us for its care and well being. The procedure is described as follows:
"The claw is extended by pushing up under the footpad or by grasping it with Allis tissue forceps. A scalpel blade is used to sharply dissect between the second and third phalanx over the top of the ungual crest. The distal interphalangeal joint is disarticulated, and the deep digital flexor tendon is incised.. . . Both techniques effectively remove the entire third phalanx" [this means the amputation of the distal phalanx or part of the toe]In plain language this procedure is:
The removal, with a knife, of the top joint from all the toes of the cat.The language of denial and disengagement does not stop there. It is everywhere in the American Veterinarian's literature. Take the AVMA Policy on Declawing Cats. The following heads the page on the AVMA website:
Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when its clawing presents a zoonotic risk for its owner(s) {revised 04/2009}This clause, as I said is the header clause and the clause that underpines the whole policy actively encourages declawing when it should do the opposite. It is an attempt to ease the guilt of the AVMA by pretending that they have a policy on declawing. These are my concerns with this defective clause:
The first sentence of the clause says that if a cat, for exampe, damages a piece of furniture and the owner can't stop it, the cat can be declawed. If the owner comes to a vet and says, "Mr Vet, I've tried to stop my cat scratching my new furniture but it hasn't worked, please declaw him". The vet can under this AVMA policy on declawing cats, say, "Yes, fine". It is an open invitation to cat owners who do not know better to get their way against the interests of the cat. When people adopt a cat they know there will be some damage. So declawing will be on the cards before the cat gets home. It is nothing less than an open invitation to declaw. It should be a barrier. In fact it blatantly contradicts the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics of the AVMA on the same website (see my posting on this: American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat), which states, "Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient....". The AVMA policy on declawing persuant to this statment considers first the client (the cat's owner).
As to the second sentence this refers to the transmission of disease from cat to human (zoonotic diseases). All cats present this exceptionally slight risk. But once again it opens the door wide to mutilation because under the AVMA policy on declawing cats all and any cat can be declawed. Once again it presents an open door to an assault on the cat. If people are worried about their furniture or the extremely rare risk of contracting a zoonotic disease they should not keep cats. We should not customise the anatomy of cats. We do not customise children beause they bring colds back from school or damage the furniture. A further point; a cat's teeth can transmit zoonotic disease: Declawing, why not detoothing as well?
Another, perhaps overlooked, point about the above clause is that is refers to, "domestic cats". It is clearly open season on tame wild cats and there are many Servals, for instance, that are automatically declawed because they are a big cat. Some escape their unsuitable conditions and are killed because they have no defense. See Serval Cat Escapes.
If this leading clause were to be written in compliance with the American Veterinary Medical Associations code of ethics it might read like this:
"Declawing of all cats must not be carried out unless it is under the most serious and unlikiest of conditions and where it is exclusively in the best interests of the cat's health and wellbeing. It is considered by the board of the AVMA that these circumstances will only very rarely apply. The reasons for carrying out the operation must comply with the veterinarian's oath and principles of ethics.That clause is in the best interests of the patient. As I mention on the Americans are Unethical Towards the Cat posting, the reason why the AVMA has drafted such an open clause is to present to the world "concern" while actually promoting declawing. The clause contains "weasel words". These are words or phrases that are intended to say one thing while the true intention is to do or promote something else. Politicans use them frequently.
The AVMA policy on declawing cats is an example of American short term thinking. I mean policies that seek to create immediate benefit at any cost while disregarding the future consequences. It is a reflection of the consumer society. However, far greater financial benefit would be accrued in the long term if a truly ethical approach was adopted by the AVMA as it would encourage people to see a vet who currently resist seeing a vet because of the cost and distrust. It would also mean that cats were treated earlier. Many cats are probably suffering indirectly through the AVMA's policy as people stay away from veterinarian's surgeries to avoid getting into the clutches of a financially greedy vet and any veterianrian who declaws cats for non-therapeutic reasons is greedy.
The AVMA policy on declawing cats should be redrafted and while that was happening the code of ethics should be properly policed as numerous vets in its association are flagrantly in breach of its policies (see this website for example: The Declaw Hall of Shame). The AVMA must lead in the interests of the cat and all animals as that is the underlying reason for its existence. It is time that the AVMA served the interests of the cat not their wallet nor the callous cat owner requesting declawing.
Further valuable reading.
- Declawing Cats - lots of links
- From AVMA Policy of Declawing Cats to Cat Health Problems
- To Home Page (main site)
- To Home Page (this site)
- http://clawsforever.blogspot.com - a blog about declawing
- http://clawsforever.ning.com/ - The Claws Connection
- http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/
group/Savingcatsclaws/ - Savingcatsclaws · Troops Taking Action To Save Cats' Claws - Putting straight some facts about declawing
- Help us ban declawing in the USA
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat
I am convinced that a large number (not all, please note) of American vets are unethical towards the cat and as a consequence they are in breach of the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics of the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) and their oath, if they are members of that association.
PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR
Accusing a vet of being unethical is strong language, I know, but declawing cats on the whim of a cat “owner” who wants to protect furniture is an assault on the cat. Under these particular circumstances, it is deliberately inflicting a physical and possibly psychological injury on the cat. It is detrimental to the cat, a violation of a vet’s oath and a violation of the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics.
In fact, the president of the AVMA seems to agree with me! If that it the case what are they doing about it? The rules should be enforced more strictly and tightened up. She wants the law to prevent it when she can prevent it in changing the code of conduct of veterinarians.
In the UK a vet doing that on a consistent basis would, in my view be struck off and prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. He or she would probably be convicted and punished to a jail term not exceeding 51 weeks and/or a fine not exceeding £20,000 ($32,302 USD). His career would be ruined.
Yet in the United States of America, where they are proud to uphold basic human rights (but not the rights of cats, it seems) highly qualified and intelligent veterinarians have criminally assaulted, by European standards, at least 20 million cats. As there is almost no declawing in the UK, despite being allowed on medical grounds, I can only presume that 99.9% of that 20m are for the personal reasons of the person keeping the cat or the landlord renting out his flats (apartments).
If it is to be done appropriately the operation to declaw a cat should cost about 600 dollars but may increase up to 800 dollars if done using lasers, but it is worth it, says a well known vet tech (Asker) who contributes to Yahoo Answers. There is also a lot of pain treatment after the operation and “arthritis develops early in these cats and life long supplementation helps keep them comfortable and less stressed” (Asker – vet tech). This all equates to big money (total: $12,000,000,000 (USD) at today’s prices – I think this is 12 billion US dollars) for vets and it is money that drives some vets (a far too large a percentage, I allege) to carry out this operation in defiance of their code of conduct and their oath and also against the best interests of the cat (but in the interests of an ill advised human client).
There is an acute conflict of interest in the US veterinary profession: money –v- ethics. In the USA and elsewhere vets have, over recent years, strived to be treated as the equal of doctors. They started to call themselves doctors. This is a newish concept. If they want the status of doctors they should act like doctors and treat cats in the same way doctors treat people. Cats have no voice and cannot decide for themselves. That places a greater responsibility on the vet towards the cat. And it also places a great responsibility on the vet to explain all the facts to the person who keeps the cat. What the vet says to the cat keeper is the make or break moment as to whether the operation takes place or not. The cat keeper is in the hands of the vet at that moment. The vets words are critical and must comply with the ethical principles and oath.
Only on rare medical grounds should the operation be carried out. You know, there is quite a lot of denial in the veterinarian profession about cat declawing. There is a kind of manipulative management going on in some vet’s practices (I allege) that coerces vet techs and other employees to participate in the process of cat declawing against their better judgment (see the Psychology of Declawing).
The form below is, by the way, completely confidential. I have no idea who is voting. You can see the spreadsheet that stores the votes here: Results
In the UK (a country that is culturally close to and similar to the USA), the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which criminalises cat declawing, made no difference to the act of declawing because it simply hardly ever happened before. It is just not part of the culture and I think this comes to a very large part from the veterinarians. It can’t be the case that British people are more ethical generally that American people. It comes down to being trained and guided by the “experts” (the vets). In many ways they guide us in respect of how to treat our cats and they indirectly police us and dictate how we treat our cats.
The surgery is basically an American “thing”. And it is an American thing because Americans are very driven by financial profit. It is why they are the richest nation in the world. What has happened is that self interest has got the better of American vets. But as mentioned their actions have, over time, coloured and altered the culture and opinions of a large number of ordinary Americans into believing that declawing is alright and acceptable when it clearly is not as it is in breach of the American Veterinary Medical Association’s code of conduct (when carried out for the personal and non-medical reasons of the cat keeper). That said, incidentally, polls in America (e.g. Petplace.com) strongly indicate that the majority of people are against declawing of cats.
It is considered inhumane and is illegal in many countries: England, Scotland, Wales, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, Portugal, Belgium, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Yugoslavia and Japan (src: Yahoo answers).
America is out of step with the world on declawing and it is in the hands of the directors and managers of the veterinarian associations to change an entirely distorted culture that is deeply ingrained in a substantial percentage of the American people.
American vets are unethical towards the cat - See also:
Update: Babz made a comment and left a link for a petition. This is the link: Declawing Petition (new page).
From American vets are unethical towards the cat to Home Page
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), established in 1863, is a not-for-profit association representing more than 78,000 veterinarians….The veterinarian’s oath under the AVMA is:
Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.Selected clause of the AVMA Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics:
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.
PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR
- Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient: to relieve disease, suffering, or disability while minimizing pain or fear. (comment: this is a basic principle and is right at the top of the document. It goes to the core of everything the vet does in his or her practice. The patient is the cat in this instance)
| American vets are unethical towards the cat - Please Note: I have reproduced the above verbatim for accuracy and I justify this under fair use as they are extracts of a large document and it is in the public’s interest and the companion cat’s interest to have this discussion. |
American vets are unethical towards the cat – Note: If anyone wants to use this article and is brave enough to do so! - I hereby license its use under creative commons. Please place this near the article if reusing it (including the links): American Vets are Unethical Towards the Cat by Michael is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. It is based on work of my own. The license applies world wide. Also Please Note: I like America and Americans but strongly dislike the culture of declawing. It is not found anywhere else. Everything that I say or do in relation to the cat is on the basis of treating the cat as I would a person, with respect. Declawing is highly disrepectful of our cat companions. |
Accusing a vet of being unethical is strong language, I know, but declawing cats on the whim of a cat “owner” who wants to protect furniture is an assault on the cat. Under these particular circumstances, it is deliberately inflicting a physical and possibly psychological injury on the cat. It is detrimental to the cat, a violation of a vet’s oath and a violation of the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics.
In fact, the president of the AVMA seems to agree with me! If that it the case what are they doing about it? The rules should be enforced more strictly and tightened up. She wants the law to prevent it when she can prevent it in changing the code of conduct of veterinarians.
In the UK a vet doing that on a consistent basis would, in my view be struck off and prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. He or she would probably be convicted and punished to a jail term not exceeding 51 weeks and/or a fine not exceeding £20,000 ($32,302 USD). His career would be ruined.
Yet in the United States of America, where they are proud to uphold basic human rights (but not the rights of cats, it seems) highly qualified and intelligent veterinarians have criminally assaulted, by European standards, at least 20 million cats. As there is almost no declawing in the UK, despite being allowed on medical grounds, I can only presume that 99.9% of that 20m are for the personal reasons of the person keeping the cat or the landlord renting out his flats (apartments).
| American vets are unethical towards the cat – Note: I realise that some people use the argument that declawing saves the lives of cats as it means they can be kept by people living in apartments where the lease forbids it. I don’t go along with that argument. These people should not keep cats at all if the lease forbids it or seek a lease that does etc. It is this kind of self serving mentality that results in unwanted rescue cats that are put down in the millions in the USA. |
If it is to be done appropriately the operation to declaw a cat should cost about 600 dollars but may increase up to 800 dollars if done using lasers, but it is worth it, says a well known vet tech (Asker) who contributes to Yahoo Answers. There is also a lot of pain treatment after the operation and “arthritis develops early in these cats and life long supplementation helps keep them comfortable and less stressed” (Asker – vet tech). This all equates to big money (total: $12,000,000,000 (USD) at today’s prices – I think this is 12 billion US dollars) for vets and it is money that drives some vets (a far too large a percentage, I allege) to carry out this operation in defiance of their code of conduct and their oath and also against the best interests of the cat (but in the interests of an ill advised human client).
There is an acute conflict of interest in the US veterinary profession: money –v- ethics. In the USA and elsewhere vets have, over recent years, strived to be treated as the equal of doctors. They started to call themselves doctors. This is a newish concept. If they want the status of doctors they should act like doctors and treat cats in the same way doctors treat people. Cats have no voice and cannot decide for themselves. That places a greater responsibility on the vet towards the cat. And it also places a great responsibility on the vet to explain all the facts to the person who keeps the cat. What the vet says to the cat keeper is the make or break moment as to whether the operation takes place or not. The cat keeper is in the hands of the vet at that moment. The vets words are critical and must comply with the ethical principles and oath.
Only on rare medical grounds should the operation be carried out. You know, there is quite a lot of denial in the veterinarian profession about cat declawing. There is a kind of manipulative management going on in some vet’s practices (I allege) that coerces vet techs and other employees to participate in the process of cat declawing against their better judgment (see the Psychology of Declawing).
The form below is, by the way, completely confidential. I have no idea who is voting. You can see the spreadsheet that stores the votes here: Results
In the UK (a country that is culturally close to and similar to the USA), the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which criminalises cat declawing, made no difference to the act of declawing because it simply hardly ever happened before. It is just not part of the culture and I think this comes to a very large part from the veterinarians. It can’t be the case that British people are more ethical generally that American people. It comes down to being trained and guided by the “experts” (the vets). In many ways they guide us in respect of how to treat our cats and they indirectly police us and dictate how we treat our cats.
“The procedure was considered cruel by almost all British vets, who refused to perform it except on medical grounds. The Guide to Professional Conduct of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons stated that declawing was "only acceptable where, in the opinion of the veterinary surgeon, injury to the animal is likely to occur during normal activity. It is not acceptable if carried out for the convenience of the owner ... the removal of claws, particularly those which are weight bearing, to preclude damage to furnishings is not acceptable."…(Wikipedia author)As can been seen, the code of practice of vets in the UK is very explicit on this subject. What is happening in the United States? It would seem to me that the American Veterinary Medical Association, which is no doubt run by veterinarians is complicit in this cruelty and in fact condone it (as I understand it they permit it when there is destructive use of claws - this will always happen so it is a full approval but using what I call "weasel" words, words dressed up to sound like the veterinarian is doing the operation for a good reason) . In fact they must allow it as otherwise they would have taken steps to better manage what is a blot on the profession in the United States.
The surgery is basically an American “thing”. And it is an American thing because Americans are very driven by financial profit. It is why they are the richest nation in the world. What has happened is that self interest has got the better of American vets. But as mentioned their actions have, over time, coloured and altered the culture and opinions of a large number of ordinary Americans into believing that declawing is alright and acceptable when it clearly is not as it is in breach of the American Veterinary Medical Association’s code of conduct (when carried out for the personal and non-medical reasons of the cat keeper). That said, incidentally, polls in America (e.g. Petplace.com) strongly indicate that the majority of people are against declawing of cats.
It is considered inhumane and is illegal in many countries: England, Scotland, Wales, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, Portugal, Belgium, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Yugoslavia and Japan (src: Yahoo answers).
America is out of step with the world on declawing and it is in the hands of the directors and managers of the veterinarian associations to change an entirely distorted culture that is deeply ingrained in a substantial percentage of the American people.
American vets are unethical towards the cat - See also:
Update: Babz made a comment and left a link for a petition. This is the link: Declawing Petition (new page).
From American vets are unethical towards the cat to Home Page
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Airgun Attacks on Cats
Airgun attacks on cats keep on occurring in the UK. There seems to be a type of person in the UK, probably a young person, who is idle, sloppy, rather nasty and very badly brought up who likes to shoot cats with an air gun. These mysterious cat haters seem to populate all four corners of our island (see i hate cats). My vision or instinct (admittedly probably biased but it is all I have to go on) is that these social underclass types, mindlessly take pleasure in this sick pastime. I can visualise him looking out of his bedroom window wondering what to do and then seeing a cat wander by below decides that it would be amusing to test his hunting skills with the air gun his absent father bought him for Christmas.
If he was in America his father would have bought him a high powered hunting rifle and spent many an hour telling him how he had bravely stalked cougars in the mountains. Of course he wouldn’t have mentioned that the cougar had no chance because he used a pack of bl**dy hounds to track and corner the cat before shooting it at close range. It is the same thing only on a different scale as for all things American. In America they eat more and kill more than in Great Britain but the same mentality exists for that “type” of person. The one who simply doesn’t get it, who never will get it and who arrogantly and with ignorance looks down on other animals as objects to shoot.
These strange people have no awareness that an animal feels pain and pleasure. That they have a right to exist just as much as people, whether they are domestic cats or wild cats. A particularly hideous example of hunting cougar is when these mindless idiots stalk female cougars with cubs. The cubs are left motherless on her tragic and mindless death and die too. And it is that, the mindlessness of it all that disturbs me. There is a vast number of people who are simply switched off.
And, yes, I am talking down to these people because that is all one can do. Why is the world so divided over hunting? There are millions of people who see nothing wrong in hunting and shooting a mountain lion in America. And there is an equal number who hate the very thought of it. How dysfunctional is that? All I know is that it is wrong, very wrong and that it is a nasty throwback to the time hundreds and thousands of years ago when hunting was a necessity – it is no longer, so please stop!
What prompted this post was the usual story in the UK of yet more cats being shot and badly injured by air gun pellets. On this occasion it is in Oxfordshire. The home of well heeled people and Oxford University. The cat keeper concerned is Denise French of of Gwyneth Road, Littlemore.
This is the second time it has happened and I would expect it to be the same person or group of people who carried out the criminality on both occasions and I would also expect them to be local. Pippin would roam the scrubland behind her house. This implies that it happened there and as I said that the culprit is local, perhaps very local. I would knock on doors!
Mrs French hopes the news story will shame the criminal into stopping – a fat chance! If this person had a conscience he wouldn’t do it in the first place. The only way is to catch him and punish him and the police are not all that good at that, really they’re not. This is low level crime despite a pretty hefty sentence on conviction of a maximum of 6 months in jail and a fine of £20,000. It is also worth mentioning that such low level crime (in the eyes of the police) is often a precursor to serious crime against people as it is sign of a maladjusted individual.
The above cat enclosure has no connection with this story – just a nice example of a cat enclosure which by the way give peace of mind to us – so double benefit. Photo by Shamey Jo (new window)
On good thing has come out of this. Mrs French has decided to build a cat enclosure and to stop her cats wandering. I like cat enclosures. They allow a cat to be outdoors, to smell the outdoors and watch. Cats can watch for endless hours and take amusement from it. Notice the contrast in forms of amusement. The human likes to kill to amuse while the cat watches. And I don’t want to hear people say that domestic cats wipe out a ton of wildlife. This is not true but something propagated by bird conservation societies and the like in their war against the cat. Anyway outside a cat enclosure birds are protected.
The RSPCA agree that they see all to many cases of cats being shot with airguns. Many are killed and those that aren’t have the quality of their lives severely curtailed, very often.
Another airgun attack on cats also occurred in Oxfordshire, this time in nearby Chinnor, Oxfordshire. Both incidents are marked together below:
I don’t think that these are related because, as mentioned, my view is that the shooters live near to where the shooting took place. I cannot see a person driving around the country (and these two shootings are 15 miles apart) just to find a cat to shoot (unless they are seriously barmy as well as nasty). But airgun attacks on cats is so easy and convenient. Airguns can be bought over the counter in the same way real guns can in the USA. And in the UK cats are often left to wander unlike in the US. The airgun attacks on cats are a crime waiting to happen because all you need to create that toxic mix is an ignorant, idiotic and nasty individual to aim the gun at the cat.
I would advocate more cat enclosures in the UK and for cats to be managed a little more carefully. Gone are the good ole days when human population was a lot lower and traffic far less than today. We still act in a manner reminiscent of the 1950s concerning cats going out and wandering. Although, I personally don’t like the idea of a cat being permanently kept indoors especially when there is room outside in the garden to build a cat enclosure. In the US, where there is a lot more space and property prices significantly more manageable, a cat enclosure would seem a real possibility but few take it up preferring to keep their cat indoors. Sure, there are still risks of catching fleas and ticks etc. in an enclosure but there is risk in everything and risk needs to be set against quality of life.
See also:
- Cat Indoors or Out
- Cat poison - another hideous act of cruelty often
From Airgun attack on cats to Home page
Airgun attacks on cats –source of news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Animal Cruelty Statistics USA
Animal Cruelty Statistics for the USA are hard to find. Even the most respected of sources, HSUS, which provide some information, are unable sometimes to provide up to date information. Reporting of animal cruelty is not great, is it? I don't think we really have a handle on the problem.
A lot of the figures come from media reported cases. What percentage of the total cases are media reported? No one knows as most animal cruelty happens behind closed doors unannounced. Lets guess, I would say about 10% is in the media.
In the UK, it is no better. If you go to the RSPCA website, and search for animal cruelty statistics you simply don't get what you are looking for. I would like to see some real numbers, recent numbers and trends to see what is going on. Is it getting worse or better?
From Animal Cruelty Statistics USA to Home Page
A lot of the figures come from media reported cases. What percentage of the total cases are media reported? No one knows as most animal cruelty happens behind closed doors unannounced. Lets guess, I would say about 10% is in the media.
| USA Animal Cruelty Statistics provided by HSUS plus some info. | |
| Most common victims of animal cruelty (media reports) | Dogs (64.5%) - 2007 |
| Percentage of cruelty cases involving companion cats | 18% (2007) |
| Animals abused in connection with domestic violence (between people) | 1,000,000 (estimated) |
| Number of men or women assaulted by partner annually USA | 2,168,000 (2000) |
| Households keeping a companion animal | 65% of households (2006) |
| Percentage of domestic violence victims who said partner also victimised pet | 71% (1997) |
| US States that don't have felony provisions for animal cruelty (2009 src: HSUS) | Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota |
| What is a Crush Film? | A film showing the death by crushing of an animal |
| Are Crush Films allowed in the US? | Yes, protected as freedom of speech. |
In the UK, it is no better. If you go to the RSPCA website, and search for animal cruelty statistics you simply don't get what you are looking for. I would like to see some real numbers, recent numbers and trends to see what is going on. Is it getting worse or better?
From Animal Cruelty Statistics USA to Home Page
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Cat in Hell's Chance
This post explains the origin of the phrase, "Cat in hell's chance". It is used like this, "He didn't have a cat in hell's chance the poor devil.....", meaning he had no hope. It normally refers to a life threatening situation in which the person is killed or injured although it might be used in the context of, for example, a sporting occasion when a sportsman is trying to achieve the seemingly impossible.
This phrase is an abbreviation of the phrase,"No more chance than a cat in hell without claws". This referred to the hopeless situation of being without weapons (claws) when needed.
This turns my mind to the hideous (for me) practice of declawing. About 20 million cats are declawed in the United States and each one is wrong. It is big bucks though for the vets. Sorry but true. Some cats haven't got a cat in hell's chance of keeping the top of their toe. Declawing is a misdescription to assuage the guilt of those involved in it. A lot more than the claw is amputated. Please read these:
Cat in Hell's Chance to Home Page
This phrase is an abbreviation of the phrase,"No more chance than a cat in hell without claws". This referred to the hopeless situation of being without weapons (claws) when needed.
This turns my mind to the hideous (for me) practice of declawing. About 20 million cats are declawed in the United States and each one is wrong. It is big bucks though for the vets. Sorry but true. Some cats haven't got a cat in hell's chance of keeping the top of their toe. Declawing is a misdescription to assuage the guilt of those involved in it. A lot more than the claw is amputated. Please read these:
- Declaw cats - two stories based on fact in which cats were killed because they were declawed.
- Helmi Flick on declawing
- Psychology of declawing
Cat in Hell's Chance to Home Page
Let the Cat Out of the Bag
This post explains the origin of the phrase, "let the cat out of the bag". It dates back to the 18th century and refers to a market day trick. Piglets were taken to market in a small bag. The con man or trickster would put a cat in the bag instead of a pig. When and if the buyer insisted on seeing the pig the seller would say that the pig might escape if he opened the bag. If the cat did escape (I hope many did) the con man's game was up, he was exposed and he had let the cat out of the bag (meaning in modern parlance, disclosing a secret).
Another old phrase is linked to this one, "Never buy a pig in a poke". Both are rarely used today, the former is more current than the latter, however. The word "poke" refers to the bag in which the cat (or pig was placed). The phrase is saying that a buyer should not trust a seller of a pig when the pig is kept in the bag (or poke).
Let the Cat Out of the Bag to Home Page
Another old phrase is linked to this one, "Never buy a pig in a poke". Both are rarely used today, the former is more current than the latter, however. The word "poke" refers to the bag in which the cat (or pig was placed). The phrase is saying that a buyer should not trust a seller of a pig when the pig is kept in the bag (or poke).
Let the Cat Out of the Bag to Home Page
Friday, 27 March 2009
Link Between Cat Abuse and Child Abuse
The link between cat abuse and child abuse is illustrated in this fictional story based on a true story:
Photo by kayi1117
Apparently, there is little data and information on the number of incidences when children have witnessed both violence against their mother (most often) and the family's companion animal(s). As companion animals are very often considered to be a "family member" such experiences will probably be as traumatic as violence against human family members, maybe even more so. Certainly the combination of violence against animal and human is worth investigating. And the two, commonly, go together. In some States in the United States legislation in respect of animal violence proscribes an evaluation as to anger management in sentencing that includes as it is often caused by psychological problems.
Perhaps, as mentioned, cats are more frequently abused by violent spouses because they are more vulnerable. I don't know. I am making an assumption. There is, though, an undeniable link between cat abuse and child abuse and in these families the child is at an increased risk of abuse too. This is hardly surprising as a child is also a vulnerable creature at the mercy of a violent person.
It has been surmised that a child exposed to companion animal and parent abuse may lead to a propensity for the child to become abusive when adult to people and animals. This would be a learned process. Children learn from their parents by observation. Children who then, for example, are violent towards the family cat (in externalizing their problems) will inevitably harden their heart to violence leading to possible violence against people and criminality.
In research carried out in the USA, a survey of 50 shelters for battered women were asked the following questions and they provided the answers as indicated:
For the full report and discussion please see this web page: http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa5.3/Ascione.html (this is the source other than from me of this post). I have been selective, modified and summarized. But actually it is frankly obvious that there is a link between companion animal or cat abuse and child abuse in the family. Both are vulnerable and a violent person will express that against the easiest targets. So it will both or either direct abuse of the child or indirect in the case of Chrissie above who will possibly or probably suffer psychological damage as a result of her experiences.
Link between cat abuse and child abuse -- Photo published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs creative commons License -- this site is for charitable purposes in funding cat rescue.
Chrissie, Laura's 8 year old daughter, came running in from the porch. Tears were streaming down her face. She was making those heaving sobs that come from the heart. It took her mother all of 5 minutes to calm her down before she was able to speak. Her mother was shocked. She had never seen her daughter so upset."Cat abuse" can, naturally be substituted by animal abuse but it seems that cats are more vulnerable than dogs and therefore more likely to be abused by an abusive person in a household. Cats and dogs are the most common companion animal in households, which is why I mention these animals. I talk about cats as this is a cat site.
"Daddy said that if he saw the cat on the porch again he'll kill it. It just happened, Mummy". He took my cat from me and killed it in his hands. He just snapped little kitty's neck and threw her in the trash bin..."
Little Chrissie calmed down that day. But the pain remained for a long time.
Photo by kayi1117
Apparently, there is little data and information on the number of incidences when children have witnessed both violence against their mother (most often) and the family's companion animal(s). As companion animals are very often considered to be a "family member" such experiences will probably be as traumatic as violence against human family members, maybe even more so. Certainly the combination of violence against animal and human is worth investigating. And the two, commonly, go together. In some States in the United States legislation in respect of animal violence proscribes an evaluation as to anger management in sentencing that includes as it is often caused by psychological problems.
Perhaps, as mentioned, cats are more frequently abused by violent spouses because they are more vulnerable. I don't know. I am making an assumption. There is, though, an undeniable link between cat abuse and child abuse and in these families the child is at an increased risk of abuse too. This is hardly surprising as a child is also a vulnerable creature at the mercy of a violent person.
It has been surmised that a child exposed to companion animal and parent abuse may lead to a propensity for the child to become abusive when adult to people and animals. This would be a learned process. Children learn from their parents by observation. Children who then, for example, are violent towards the family cat (in externalizing their problems) will inevitably harden their heart to violence leading to possible violence against people and criminality.
In research carried out in the USA, a survey of 50 shelters for battered women were asked the following questions and they provided the answers as indicated:
| Question | % of respondents answering "Yes" |
| Do women who come to your shelter talk about companion animal abuse? | 85.4 |
| Do children who come to your shelter talk about companion animal abuse? | 63.0 |
| Have you seen a combination of domestic violence and companion animal abuse, in your experience? | 83.3 |
For the full report and discussion please see this web page: http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa5.3/Ascione.html (this is the source other than from me of this post). I have been selective, modified and summarized. But actually it is frankly obvious that there is a link between companion animal or cat abuse and child abuse in the family. Both are vulnerable and a violent person will express that against the easiest targets. So it will both or either direct abuse of the child or indirect in the case of Chrissie above who will possibly or probably suffer psychological damage as a result of her experiences.
Link between cat abuse and child abuse -- Photo published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs creative commons License -- this site is for charitable purposes in funding cat rescue.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
International Enforcement is Needed for the Tiger
International Enforcement is Needed for the Tiger. I constantly see good intentions to save the tiger in Asia (remember the tiger is only found in Asia) thwarted by a failure to execute a plan. I made a posting recently about poisoning tigers and another about The Tiger is Doomed? In both the cases I feel that the Indian authorities could have achieved more and saved tiger lives if they had executed their plans to conserve the tiger more effectively. Another "failure to execute" has come to light. This is a saying commonly used by sportsmen like Tiger Woods. He plans a strategy but if he hits the ball badly by his standards that day he will have failed to execute the plan.Another country manifesting a lack of proper execution of its plan is Indonesia. Whereas in China tiger parts are considered good for health when put into medicine, in Indonesia tiger body parts are thought to bring good luck (not for the tiger, obviously). This means that parts like whiskers, teeth, claws and skin, which is worn, bring the wearer good luck. And they also protect from black magic. Look I don't and won't criticize the people who wear these parts of the tiger but to believe in black magic is rather old fashioned, isn't it. That kind of thing went out of fashion 400 years ago, I thought. And I am not knocking some cultural thing. I am just making a comment about the archaic practice of black magic. Education would certainly play a role in drying up demand from the consumer. Another critical problem for the Sumatran tiger's survival is habitat destruction due to the timber trade. Habitat destruction for commercial reasons is a massive problem for the tiger in Asia generally.
The supply of raw product (the tiger) is drying up as a consequence of this ridiculously unacceptable trade. The latest plan (there must have been earlier failed plans) declared by the President of the Republic of Indonesia would seem to be the "Conservation Strategy and Action Plan of Sumatran Tiger 2007–2017" and made during the 2007 Climate Change Convention in Bali.
Yet in a press release by the World Conservation Union, Traffic and WWF dated 13th Feb 2008 (see report) it was declared that the laws of Indonesia have failed to protect the critically endangered (IUCN Red List status CR) Sumatran tiger. Body parts are on open sale in shops in Indonesia. The shop keepers don't even have to hide what they are doing. Any plan is going to fail under those circumstances. There cannot be any enforcement at all or very, very little. The survey estimated that tiger part sale had dropped between 2000 and 2006 due to less tigers being available for slaughter!:
| Date | Number tiger estimated to supply shops with parts |
| 2000 | 56 |
| 2006 | 23 |
| 10% of the 326 shops surveyed were selling Sumatran tiger parts | |
I hope that they don't mind me quoting them (I provide a link in exchange: IUCN Red List) "Despite TRAFFIC providing authorities with details of traders involved, apart from awareness-raising activities, it is not clear whether any serious enforcement action has been taken." This points to lack of execution.
What I want to suggest is that when it comes to people in need of help to save people under dire circumstances, the world communities' assistance is more often than not requested and accepted. Isn't there a market for an international force of wildcat or wildlife enforcement officers who can provide a neutral and independent enforcement task force in countries such as Indonesia to save a fantastic wild animal? And this really is about saving a species from extinction in the wild for ever - the Javan and Bali tigers have already disappeared. I say that international enforcement is needed for the tiger survival in the wild bearing in mind the failed enforcement of plans throughout Asia. International Enforcement is needed for the tiger's protection in relation to habitat loss too, provided the governments enact the laws and are behind an international force.
Heather Sohl of WWF says that if people need help in enforcement they only need ask.
International Enforcement is Needed for the Tiger to Home Page
International Enforcement is Needed for the Tiger - Photo of a Sumatran tiger at London Zoo, UK by by TGIGreeny and published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs creative commons License (this wesbite is for charitable purposes - cat rescue).
Friday, 13 March 2009
Tiger Farms
Are tiger farms bad? If we stand back and just get a gut feel for this question, a lot (a majority, I would say) of us would think tiger farms are hideous. How can we take the most popular wild animal in the world and farm it!? How can we turn such a proud and precious animal into farm livestock? It sounds disgusting. "To me it is disgusting," Valmik Thapar (a prominent conservationist) thunders. "It's not civil to have tiger farms; it's not part of anyone's dream." (I have quoted Mr Thapar and I am sure he will allow it).
But if we put away all sentiment it could be argued that tiger farms are a good idea at least on first impressions.
But if we put away all sentiment it could be argued that tiger farms are a good idea at least on first impressions.
Farms like these are selling tiger bone wine and other products. The photograph (which I have selectively cropped), is by International Tiger Coalition. People are free to use this image on condition that they provide a credit. I can feel the stress these tigers are feeling cooped up like this, wholly unnaturally.
If the tiger has been poached to extinction (nearly) or its habitat and prey eroded to the point where it shares land with people to the demise of the tiger and a few people, then tiger farms are one way, on the face of it, to reduce poaching and preserve this big cat in the wild. And the unsentimental will say, "what is the difference between a tiger and a rabbit?" Both are wild animals and both are used for the pleasure of mankind, in one way or another. So why aren't we shouting from the rooftops about the rabbit or the horse, which is eaten by some people.
The reason why a gut feel is, in fact, the right feel is because tiger farms are a complete fraud and a sham. If they are meant to be a means to help preserve the wild tiger, they don't work. It is even more basic than that, it is simply about money, nothing else, making money from tigers in a cruel and uncaring way.
One reason why they are a sham, and dangerous to the wild tiger and not a benefit to them, is because the people who own and run these farms are lobbying the authorities (presumed CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) to allow tiger parts from the farms to be traded (in breach of CITES currently). If that is allowed, it is argued that, the trade in tiger parts will be encouraged and expanded and muddied up at a time when it is most critical and important for there to be a tightening up of CITES restrictions and not a loosening up.
Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition and thanks to Big Cat Rescue for showing these pictures on their website.
Here are some other reasons why tiger farms are bad:
Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition (cropped)
Yes I know we are disgusted by this image, those of us who have retained a sense of what is right. What you are looking at is the most popular wild animal in the world reduced to trash and meat, chilled flesh and bone, bereft of dignity. The owner of this farm was keeping what was left of the tiger bodies (you can see one has been skinned) until it becomes legal to trade in body parts. And CITES had asked, formally, China to investigate illegal sales of tiger meat at the Guilin farm. What is CITES doing asking China to investigate? This is preposterous. It is like asking the police to investigate an assault perpetrated by an officer on duty. Do we ever get a result from such an investigation? No. It is like the kind of investigation carried out by the Financial Securities Agency (FSA) in the UK (charged with monitoring the bankers) in investigating financial frauds -- forget it. It does not work. There is not enough independent and neutral control and management.
And it really is about attitude. I have yet to see someone talk about the attitude of people who find doing what is illustrated normal and acceptable. Surely this is at the root of the problem. Some people (sadly a lot of these people are in an area which is near where the tiger's habitat is) just find it acceptable to treat tigers as livestock. Actually, it is worse than that, you wouldn't treat livestock in some countries as the tiger is treated on tiger farms. I am sure that if a health and safety official visited a farm in the UK and found cattle lying around like these dead and mutilated tigers, he or she would make a formal complaint. So I conclude that the Chinese people involved in this business (not all Chinese please note - I don't want someone saying that I am racist, I am not) think of tigers as livestock on a farm. Many millions of people in the west think of tigers differently. And allowing tigers to be farmed will simply perpetuate this outdated and outmoded attitude.
The only long term answer is to educate and change attitudes and that will require the agreement of the Chinese government. To get their agreement there has to be a financial reward. The loss of the tiger in the wild is a world problem. The tiger belongs to the world and the world must find a way to save this animal.
The overriding problem, though, is that the majority of the people of the world do not know about this or if they do, they don't care sufficiently. How many people know about tiger farms? How many people ask whether tiger farms are bad? Lets guess, 2 million in the world. That represents 0.033 percent of the world's population, an infinitesimal amount and of no consequence. People generally, globally simply do not know or care enough to change things. And I am not being critical. It is just human nature.
It is shocking to realize that, "The 171 member nations of CITES made it clear last month that ‘tigers should not be bred for their parts and derivatives.'” The Chinese tiger part dealers are particularly bothered about this statement, are they? No. Some say that the Chinese have banned (in line with CITES) tiger body parts, but I for one don't believe it. The body parts of wild tigers are still being traded because no one is enforcing the CITES ban and there is too much money in the trade, which becomes more valuable as the tiger becomes rarer. Another factor: it costs 250 times more to raise a tiger in captivity than it does to poach a wild tiger. Killing wild tigers is more economically viable.
Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition
OK, what else is bad about tiger farms?:
Tiger Farms - Save me please - Photo by International Tiger Coalition.
On the basis, as mentioned, that the tiger belongs to the world (and not humans) and its extinction in the wild is a world problem, I suggest this as a solution to the tiger farms problem:
Are Tiger Farms Bad? to Bengal Tiger Facts
If the tiger has been poached to extinction (nearly) or its habitat and prey eroded to the point where it shares land with people to the demise of the tiger and a few people, then tiger farms are one way, on the face of it, to reduce poaching and preserve this big cat in the wild. And the unsentimental will say, "what is the difference between a tiger and a rabbit?" Both are wild animals and both are used for the pleasure of mankind, in one way or another. So why aren't we shouting from the rooftops about the rabbit or the horse, which is eaten by some people.
The reason why a gut feel is, in fact, the right feel is because tiger farms are a complete fraud and a sham. If they are meant to be a means to help preserve the wild tiger, they don't work. It is even more basic than that, it is simply about money, nothing else, making money from tigers in a cruel and uncaring way.
One reason why they are a sham, and dangerous to the wild tiger and not a benefit to them, is because the people who own and run these farms are lobbying the authorities (presumed CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) to allow tiger parts from the farms to be traded (in breach of CITES currently). If that is allowed, it is argued that, the trade in tiger parts will be encouraged and expanded and muddied up at a time when it is most critical and important for there to be a tightening up of CITES restrictions and not a loosening up.
Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition and thanks to Big Cat Rescue for showing these pictures on their website.
Here are some other reasons why tiger farms are bad:
- 5,000 live tigers are kept on tiger farms in China. There are about 4,000 (the figure is not certain) in the wild and 12,000 in the USA as "pets". The photograph below shows us how these farm tigers are treated at the end of their lives in very limited captivity:
Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition (cropped)
Yes I know we are disgusted by this image, those of us who have retained a sense of what is right. What you are looking at is the most popular wild animal in the world reduced to trash and meat, chilled flesh and bone, bereft of dignity. The owner of this farm was keeping what was left of the tiger bodies (you can see one has been skinned) until it becomes legal to trade in body parts. And CITES had asked, formally, China to investigate illegal sales of tiger meat at the Guilin farm. What is CITES doing asking China to investigate? This is preposterous. It is like asking the police to investigate an assault perpetrated by an officer on duty. Do we ever get a result from such an investigation? No. It is like the kind of investigation carried out by the Financial Securities Agency (FSA) in the UK (charged with monitoring the bankers) in investigating financial frauds -- forget it. It does not work. There is not enough independent and neutral control and management.
And it really is about attitude. I have yet to see someone talk about the attitude of people who find doing what is illustrated normal and acceptable. Surely this is at the root of the problem. Some people (sadly a lot of these people are in an area which is near where the tiger's habitat is) just find it acceptable to treat tigers as livestock. Actually, it is worse than that, you wouldn't treat livestock in some countries as the tiger is treated on tiger farms. I am sure that if a health and safety official visited a farm in the UK and found cattle lying around like these dead and mutilated tigers, he or she would make a formal complaint. So I conclude that the Chinese people involved in this business (not all Chinese please note - I don't want someone saying that I am racist, I am not) think of tigers as livestock on a farm. Many millions of people in the west think of tigers differently. And allowing tigers to be farmed will simply perpetuate this outdated and outmoded attitude.
The only long term answer is to educate and change attitudes and that will require the agreement of the Chinese government. To get their agreement there has to be a financial reward. The loss of the tiger in the wild is a world problem. The tiger belongs to the world and the world must find a way to save this animal.
The overriding problem, though, is that the majority of the people of the world do not know about this or if they do, they don't care sufficiently. How many people know about tiger farms? How many people ask whether tiger farms are bad? Lets guess, 2 million in the world. That represents 0.033 percent of the world's population, an infinitesimal amount and of no consequence. People generally, globally simply do not know or care enough to change things. And I am not being critical. It is just human nature.
It is shocking to realize that, "The 171 member nations of CITES made it clear last month that ‘tigers should not be bred for their parts and derivatives.'” The Chinese tiger part dealers are particularly bothered about this statement, are they? No. Some say that the Chinese have banned (in line with CITES) tiger body parts, but I for one don't believe it. The body parts of wild tigers are still being traded because no one is enforcing the CITES ban and there is too much money in the trade, which becomes more valuable as the tiger becomes rarer. Another factor: it costs 250 times more to raise a tiger in captivity than it does to poach a wild tiger. Killing wild tigers is more economically viable.
Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition
OK, what else is bad about tiger farms?:
- Chinese tiger farmers say they are making a loss. This is because of the 14-year ban on domestic and international trade in tiger body parts. They want to open trade again. Question: how have they stayed in business for 14 years if they are making a loss? And if they started up within the past 14 years why did they go into the business if it was loss making. We don't believe this kind of comment do we?
- Look at the pictures of the tigers waiting to be killed for their body parts. How do you think they feel? They are very static, very hot. They live in very small spaces. A tigers natural home range is 7-58 square miles - src: http://www.seaworld.org. This is torture waiting for (probably) a brutal death to be cut up and parts sold for the ridiculous Chinese medicine market. Why people in this day and age harbour medieval thoughts that a bit of a tiger can cure you of an illness is beyond me.
- Apparently the owners of these farms show compassion for people who come to the tiger farms seeking and pleading to buy tiger bone to cure rheumatism. The tiger farm owners say they must reluctantly turn them away because of the restriction on trade. I guess the tiger farm owners don't tell them that tiger bone does not cure rheumatism and that it is all hocus pocus.
- There is no need for original animal body parts in Chinese medicine. There are effective (probably far more effective than the tiger part which cannot be effective at all) substitutes. There is no need to treat tigers like this.
- The farms sell tiger bone wine and tiger meat even. This is hideous and has nothing to do with conservation of the tiger, it is plain callous commercialization of an highly endangered animal.
Tiger Farms - Save me please - Photo by International Tiger Coalition.
On the basis, as mentioned, that the tiger belongs to the world (and not humans) and its extinction in the wild is a world problem, I suggest this as a solution to the tiger farms problem:
- Provide China with some sort of political incentive to close tiger farms. America is talking to China currently on economic matters, why can't the tiger be brought into the discussions?
- The major nations of the world pool resources, including China, to recompense those businesses who are involved in the tiger body parts trade when the trade is shut down. The Chinese must shut this trade down but to make it palatable there has to be compensation.
- In tandem with this there should be a nationwide program of education in China initially on alternatives to ingredients to Chinese medicine along the lines promulgated in the west. There are effective substitutes for all the tiger body parts that are used in "medicine".
- As to skins etc. there is no short cut here. The traders should be compensated and retrained once trade is banned with proper enforcement. There is arguably a need for a world enforcement team along the lines of the UN.
UPDATE
It is April 2021, quite a few years after I wrote this article (March 2009) and tiger farms have got worse as we would expect because China is very industrious at whatever they do. The demand for tiger body parts is bound to grow therefore they need more tigers to slaughter like livestock to supply the body parts.
Incidentally, a bit of good news but only very incidentally to the main topic: China's human population is stagnating. Their citizens are not having babies despite the government's attempts to encourage them to have families. The one child policy has long been removed and now they can have 2 children but citizens are not taking up the offer. This means the demand for tiger body parts might level off and stabilise but perhaps I am being overly optimistic.
It is said that today, in 2021, China's tiger farms have turned a wild animal into a species worth more dead than alive. Tigers are reduced to living in just 6% of their former distribution and they've become more valuable as livestock and to be slaughtered than to watch them and admire them in the wild. China has reduced them to that status in my honest opinion. But other countries also have tiger farms and they are all in Asia.
As tigers become rarer in the wild because of poaching and human population growth in India where the Bengal tiger primarily lives, they become more valuable in captivity, on farms. One of the most popular tiger products is tiger bone wine, a concoction that is claimed to treat arthritis, impotence and rheumatism. Perhaps it is claimed to cure pretty well everything and people believe it is well. There is no science to back this up.
Tiger body parts are cooked for wealthy businessmen and bureaucrats because they like to demonstrate their elevated social status and their wealth. They also think that eating bits of a tiger does them some good in some way.
There are now estimated 8,000 tigers held in captivity on farms across China and in Laos, Thailand and Vietnam as at the date of this update. They are housed in appalling conditions, concrete floors, barely enough space to allow them any form of normal exercise, completely unnatural habitat et cetera. Tigers bred on these farms for their bones are often malnourished and it is said that their deaths are deliberately induced by starvation.
One worker said that a skeleton is a bag of bones which is what they're looking for anyway. Tigers bred for meat rather than for bones are plumped up by being pumped full of liquid and force-fed to make them as fat as possible. The farmers fatten them up because they get more money for their carcasses. They can barely stand at the end of their lives with their stomach scraping low to the ground.
These tiger farms are described as speed-breeding factory farms providing raw materials for high-end products. It is a conveyor belt from the creation of cubs by a mother who is quickly brought back into heat by removing her cubs once born. They are used as forms of entertainment. Visitors can pay to cuddle and bottle feed them, take selfies with them for their social media webpages. Then once the cubs have grown up they can be fattened up and slaughtered. Everything is commercialised.
This once magnificent creature has been reduced to a commercial asset, to be maltreated as livestock and then fed to the arrogant and hungry mouths of rich bureaucrats in China and Laos.
Are Tiger Farms Bad? to Bengal Tiger Facts
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Featured Post
i hate cats
i hate cats, no i hate f**k**g cats is what some people say when they dislike cats. But they nearly always don't explain why. It appe...
Popular posts
-
The big Maine Coon cat (MC) is very impressive and the biggest purely domestic cat in the world (I am excluding the wildcat hybrids ) but no...
-
Photo of Nebelung Cat Lovenblues Mozart Bronikowski copyright © Helmi Flick – please respect copyright. The Nebelung has a medi...
-
Russian Blue Kitten photograph by Sensual Shadows Photography Before you go in search of Russian Blue Kittens have a look at these and h...
