Pierced kittens removed from home

Poor kitties!
I am not a huge cat fan, but sweet Goddess, no animal deserves that!

Here is the actual classified for the kitten.
http://www.petclassifieds.us/111205/pure_black_tailess_pierced_gothic_kitten.html

I am sickened by this classified ..A normal little black kitten used for the monetary value.

Her mentality was probably because she IS a groomer, she knows what she's doing & everything would be kosher.
People never cease to *ahem* amaze me....

Succubus wrote:

Here is the actual classified for the kitten.
http://www.petclassifieds.us/111205/pure_black_tailess_pierced_gothic_kitten.html

I am sickened by this classified ..A normal little black kitten used for the monetary value.

The poor thing!
It just looks so....sad...
Those barbells have seriously got to hurt as well.
Those are the gauges they use in bellybutton rings!

Poor little kittens.And the poor dog too
I hope they will heal up all right.

Holy crap,I didn't read this until just now.
The kittens also had submission rings placed in their tails, Morrison said, explaining that the rings would prevent blood flow, causing the tails to fall off.

I have a piercing and it hurt me and I can just imaging the pain that the poor lil kitty and doggy went through. Just her luck she will get off with a fine ....but me thinks she needs the electric chair for harming creatures that did no harm in the first place.

I know I'm probably going to be hated for this but personally I don't see why it's so wrong.
If one can pierce & tattoo oneself then why can't one pierce their own pets, especially if they were a licensed groomer who knows more about animal care than the typical individual? They're still being taken care of, fed, loved, etc... the only difference is they have piercings.
We can pierce ourselves but we can't pierce our pets?
It's morally okay to pierce ourselves and other human beings but... not animals?
Why? Because they can't voice the fact that they wouldn't want to be pierced? Because they're "hurt"? But aren't humans "hurt" during the initial process? Do we not "get over it" after it has happened?

As long as it wasn't done rushed/uncaringly, it was treated & maintained afterwards, if it was infected taken to the vet/cleaned, and it was cared for like a regular pet... I honestly don't see what's wrong with this.

Though... I suppose the whole "selling"/for profit thing is another thing to consider...
May be different if they did it for their own pets to keep for life as a reflection of their own life/style...

What about parents who let their children get tattoos or piercings? Even something as simple as an earring for a girl?
Should the parents be arrested for allowing a brief instance of pain?

ravengrim wrote:

Things like this are why it's so wrong.The kittens also had submission rings placed in their tails, Morrison said, explaining that the rings would prevent blood flow, causing the tails to fall off.

Now that part I can understand, but what about piercings that don't have any risk or cause any health issues? Or is every single part of the animals' anatomy a potential risk unlike humans? Like a single piercing through the ear or through a part of fat/flesh?

Plus, we have free will & CHOOSE to get pierced & deal with the pain it causes & can allow the piercing to close if we so wish. These animals did not have that choice & sure as hell didn't ask to be pierced!

Isn't it convenient to have the "free will" and "choice" argument in this case?
I'm pretty sure they don't have the "free will" or "choice" to be eaten (for those animals who are: chicken, pigs, cows, etc.) and yet we still slaughter/kill/use them for food. I'm pretty sure people aren't being arrested for the pain they cause those animals. And I'm pretty sure they don't choose to be stuck in a fenced/pinned area all their lives then off to be killed - something far more permanent.

Which is true about piercings on people as well.
Yet they're maintained, watched, and treated when noticed.
I'm sure any decent pet owner would do the same thing immediately if not sooner if they had even the tiniest concern. I'm sure they'd also remove the piercing if they could see it bothered their pet in any way/it acted differently.

Hmm... either way...
If something like this is to ever be done again...
I'd have to highly suggest a graduate who had seriously studied animal biology (such as a vet) as well as received professional piercing training and work in a sterile environment... opposed to someone just doing it out of the home.
That way any problematic piercings could be avoided, proper animal piercing care & maintenance could be instructed, and they'd know what to do/recommend if there was a problem to arise from a piercing in place.

Quote :

^^ They dont sound like decent pet owners to me Rolling Eyes

^Wasn't referring to the Seller; I'd hope whomever bought them would have much more sense/care.

I dunno... it's not something I'd personally be for... but under better, more regulated circumstances I don't think it's too "out there". I'm against how this person had handled it but I'm not opposed to the idea of pierced pets... but it would most definitely have to be done by a specialist & not just anyone out of the home.

That add with the pictures of the kittens brought tears to my eyes. Those rings would surely get torn out of the poor kitty eventually. That's disgusting and cruel.

I just fully read the classified again ...

Code:

Snarley Monster is a 3 month old, floppy eared, lovable kitten with a docked tail, 14 guage ear piercing, 14 guage submission ring (on the back of neck). snarley monster comes with 14 guage jewlery and silk submission lead to clip on neck ring question call 570 477 1524 taking best offer OVER 400.00

What is up with the silk submission lead ...I think everyone knows that kittens and cats do not like to be walked so there is further cause to say that the neck ring would indeed be torn out when the kitten put up a fight to be walked.

ravengrim wrote:

I'm not sure about why.
Except if you have a dog or cat you know they're always digging at their ears and they scratch themselves pretty vigorously.The tissue of their ears is much thinner than that of a human.So if they were ever too vigorous scratching themselves they could pull their earrings out.It would cause them unnecessary pain.
Plus the other issue I have with that is that a human can make a choice to do or not do something to themselves.All animals are at our mercy.

See my cat is always scratching at his ears and licking his fur. Any cat could of gotten their tongue caught on one of those rings and started going crazed trying to free themselves from being entangled..let along little kittens are always were they are not suppose to be (under the bed , under the couch , in the blinds) they could get those rings caught on anything and cause further harm to themselves from the tearing.

ravengrim wrote:

Some people are cruel to all creatures that can't defend themselves.Someone like that would probably pay top dollar for something it could hurt that was unable to defend itself.

All I can say is that if karma is a b*tch then I hope the seller gets all the karma they have coming to them 100fold .

You're a hundred percent right.
I hope that lady gets hers.