Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Can I pierce my kitten's ears?
Forget debarking - let's talk pet ear piercing. Is it ok to pierce my daughter's ears and not my kitten's? Disturbing...............................
A northeastern Pennsylvania woman who marketed "gothic kittens" with ear and neck piercings over the Internet has been convicted of animal cruelty.
A Luzerne County jury on Wednesday convicted 35-year-old dog groomer Holly Crawford of one misdemeanor count and one summary count of animal cruelty, but acquitted her of two separate counts. She will be sentenced March 31.
Crawford was charged in December 2008 after animal welfare officers took several kittens and a cat from her home. Deputy District Attorney David Pedri told jurors that Crawford inflicted pain upon three black kittens because, he alleged, "she thought it was neat" to sell gothic kittens on the Internet.
Defense attorneys argued that parents allow children to get pierced ears at young ages, and it would be wrong to hold cat owners to a higher standard.
Re: Can I pierce my kitten's ears?
They kind of have a point.
I agree. I never thought of it that way (and I've never been a fan of piercing baby ears)
No way. Allowing your children to get their ears pierced means that they have expressed interest or desire in ear piercing. Cats have no desire or reason to be pierced like that, imo.
Also, I know some people pierce the ears of their infants, but I wouldn't do that-- they can get them pierced when they're 5 or 6 if they want to so badly.
I think you're making the defense's point, though. There's no law against piercing the ears of children, even of babies who are too young to express and interest or desire in doing so. So there shouldn't be a law against piercing your cat's ears.
(FWIW, I don't think it's right to do either - but the defense's position is logical).
Okay, yes. But I don't agree with the use of "allow" in the article-- you're not "allowing" your cat to get it's ears pierced, you're allowing guardians (cat owners) to pierce the ears of their children (cats).
Defense attorneys argued that parents are allowed to pierce the ears of their children at young ages, and it would be wrong to hold cat owners to a higher standard.
You're still making the defense's point...
If I can go to any mall in America and pierce my baby's ears, without any input from them, why can't I pierce my cat's ears? Can I pierce the cat's ears when it's 5 or 6? What if I think the cat has expressed interest? My cats seem to like my earrings... maybe they want their own.
I agree with the defense about the ear piercings. The neck piercings, however, I would think would be similar to any guaged piercing on a human, which in Indiana at least requires you to be an adult (maybe 16 with parental consent?). Since a cat, unlike a human. can never consent to the neck piercings, I don't see what the defense could be there.
oh I agree that in this case its a bit different. I was just more thinking about how this is a good point to raise in the ear piercing debates. "How would you react to piercing your cat's ears?"
Actual kitten from the case. Sorry it's big, but it's easier to see the gauge of the earrings.
Another image.
If there was a mother doing this to her children I would hope she'd be cited for child abuse.
But would she? Since there's no law against piercing a child's ears, what would be the grounds?
(To be clear, this is gross, nobody should ever do this to a cat, and I'm not losing any sleep over this person being punished.)
I think, and I may be wrong, that most states say you have to be 18 or over to be pierced with this gauge of ring.
poor baby!! that looks horribly uncomfortable if not painful.
DITTO
Yeah, that kitten's ears are being distorted by the earrings. I don't see why cats should ever have their ears pierced. I'm against baby ear piercing, but at some point the baby will grow into a child/adult who understands and can either take out the earrings or not. The cat will never understand the piercing, and can never consent or not consent to it.
So would you view it the same if we were talking about a baby born with severe mental handicaps?
I agree with BB's distrinction. To a degree, I think the defense attorney has a point, and I'm not a fan of piercing baby's ears, but the mutilation of the cat far exceeds the small hole put in a child's ear from piercing. Plus, the grooming habits and movements of a cat are obviously distiguishable from a child. A baby isn't going to lick its anus and then its ear to introduce fecal matter into the wound. A baby isn't going to tear at the earring with its claws. I can't imagine the infection risk.
Playing devil's advocate, since I don't like the cat piercings either, but we don't really have a standard now that an animal should consent to anything, whether it's being spayed/neutered, having immunizations, type of cat food we're feeding it, or declawing. So why is that the case here?
I do wonder if the defense had succeeded if that would have opened up to other comparisons between animal and humans. Specifically the abuse debate and the pitiful laws on the books dealing with animal abuse.
I find these debates interesting in that most of the time people don't want to compare animals to humans.
To some degree, yes. But as carolina pointed out, a human and a cat are always going to be different. Even assuming the child is unable to care for herself ever, she doesn't have claws that can rip out the earrings, etc.
Though I'd really like to question the parents who pierce their handicapped baby's ears. Maybe shake them a little.
Because those things (aside from declawing) are done for the cat's health. Spaying and neutering brings a better quality of life for the cat, as do immunizations. I think declawing should be illegal.
Except for the declawing, all the other procedures you listed are basic health care. Even in the most backwater areas your obligated by law to provide basic care.
But declawing isn't illegal. Neither is tail docking or ear cropping for dogs. That's my point. (I also don't think spay/neuter is necessarily basic care.)
But babies do have opposable thumbs. My 10 month old is certainly strong enough to rip out a pair of earrings. There's a reason I don't wear them anymore. A few too many close calls.
So is it okay to pierce a cat's ears as long as you're using a standard gauge and not a large gauge (unless Mr Whiskers is over 18, of course)?
No. Still no. A cat can still never consent. And there is just no reason to ever do this.
Those pics are horrifying. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want this done to an animal, but I guess it would be ok if an owner used a small earring that didn't hurt or constantly irritate the pet.
Random thought: I wonder if cats can get keloids. Keloids run in my family and when I got my ears pierced I ended up needing cortizone shots every month for a year. I'd hate to see that happen to a baby or pet.
It should be, and I would wager soon will be (declawing and other cosmetic procedures). There are laws being passed that animals must be speutered when leaving a shelter/rescue.
Which goes back to the original point: neither can an infant. But it's "okay" in that case. Why?
(Again, this is stupid and awful and nobody should pierce a cat's ears. I just think the defense made a pretty interesting point about the different standards for cats and human and babies.)