Animal Cruelty or Art Form?

[wstphal]

@Emily, frankly I found the picture disturbing enough I clicked away from it very quickly! Now that you commented on it, I went back, and yeah, that cat is at least overweight & maybe obese. Sort of fits that the owner is not caring for the cat properly AND is getting it tattooed. And yes, overweight & obesity are very bad for cats (snakes too!). So it doesn't change my opinion of the owner. Crummy, just crummy. I still don't want regulations against letting your cat get fat, or against getting your cat tatooed, because I see it as one more way HSUS/PETA wedge themselves into owning animals AT ALL.

@James, I am NOT going to look it up, but I believe you.

@Oren, you are right. Assuming humans will not make mistakes is foolish. We need to engineer things, as best as we can, to prevent mistakes & to prevent negative consequences from mistakes. So for example, assume your dog will get out, and take precautions against worse things happening as a result.

 

[Michael823]

Not to start any backlash, as I think everyone here has a point. I just feel that tattooing a cat is wrong. I can't get too political, can't explain the gray area, etc... But when I see a sphinx tattooed on a cat, I find it wrong.
I don't like when people use their animals as a reflection of their own status. Like cropping the ears (unless done for safety/health), putting a HUGE chain or spike collar on the dog, or even tattooing. Just as I don't like when people carry dogs around in a purse all day, and never let it be a dog.

Do I think these should be punishable acts... No! But I just don't like it, plain and simple.

But as you guys are saying, there is a huge gray area. Even breeding can be considered immoral by some. Like breeding hairless dogs, yet have it live in cold climates. Shar-Pei's for example that are prone to sickness, and some need their eyes stapled open to avoid infection. I'm not saying that I think breeding these animals is wrong, but the gray area is there to include these things as well, in my opinion.

 

[Emily1188]

I have to disagree- first off, if the owner has no intention of allowing the dog or cat to breed, sexual frustration can cause erratic and even violent behavior- if they become problematic to keep, yes, for their sake it is better to go through surgery than lose their household.
Also- cancer of the reproductive organs is both common and extremely violent- removing them eliminates those odds.

I hear this time and time again, and yet when dealing with intact dogs and talking with those who keep intact (and unbred) dogs (it is uncommon for working dogs to be routinely altered) I see no evidence for it whatsoever. What I do see is that dogs who are kept with people who are serious about their training, exercise, and care are fine intact. That tells me that it's not a matter of something inherent to an intact dog, but rather a situational issue. I'm not suggesting that the average pet owner I see walking down the street everyday is suited to having an intact dog, but rather that I've yet to talk to the serious dog enthusiast that couldn't fix an issue with their dog before resorting to surgery. It's a human problem, a husbandry issue, and most altering done for keeping dogs as what people perceive as "easier pets".

Somehow, the dozens of intact animals that frequent my obedience club are just fine. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that their owners put in extra time and dedication than the average person, and not because they just got lucky and don't have violent, sexually frustrated animals.

If you support altering so that a pet may remain in its home, I assume you support declawing for the same reasons. While I would never declaw my own cat, I would rather see a declawed one than a dead one.

Are the risks worth the outcome... that's different for every case unto itself.

Of course - I couldn't agree more. But you said "absolute medical benefit", and given that Webster defines absolute as such, I have a hard time viewing preventative altering as benefiting the animal absolutely. Removing cancerous testicles is of absolute benefit; taking them from a healthy 6 month old pup is not.

If owners can remove their animal's sex organs to prevent cancer, why can't I dock my litter of Dobermans to prevent broken/bloody tails? It's disturbingly common if you talk to people, and because their tails lack almost any flesh, bone can be exposed quickly.

Does that then fit under procedures that are acceptable in the name prevention, having weighed the benefits and risks?

Reproductive cancer exists and I would never deny that, however, cut off anything and the chance for cancer in that organ disappears. Neutering increases the risk of prostate cancer in male dogs (way harder to operate on than the conveniently dangling testicles). It is by no means of clear and obvious benefit to the dog.

If I have to assume my dog will get out and impregnate another dog, I have to assume he will break his tail or shred his ears, especially if he's of a traditionally cropped or docked breed (since they often have thin ears/fragile tails). :shrugs: Why is one thing ok in the name of prevention, and not the others? And maybe my way of engineering things to prevent mistakes is to have a sturdy fence/kennel and excellent training on my intact dog, because I feel the health benefits are worth it.

 

[wstphal]

Well, it also depends on the animal. Many people who have true working dogs or show in obedience can & do manage an unaltered male dog. But it just takes one escape for that dog to father an unwanted litter of puppies. And many people who don't have the inclination to work that hard with their male dog would do better to neuter it. Admittedly a sturdy enclosure can prevent many escapes and might preclude the need for sterilization of some dogs. Not all though -- I had a Samoyed (spayed) who was a tunnel digger. We had a good fence. She couldn't get over it. So she went under it. So then we put underground fencing in. She went down several feet to get under it!

In the case of tom cats, though, it's clearer -- almost no one can live with a tom cat as a pet. Unaltered toms spray EVERYWHERE. I don't support declawing at all, perhaps because to me it seems to benefit ONLY the human & because I see so many other ways the human can get the same benefits without mutilating the cat. But I won't claim I'm totally consistent on what gives me the squeemish feelings.

As to docking & cropping, I feel that although I am not very comfortable with it, for a true working dog who might very well avoid an injury by undergoing a minor surgery done under sterile conditions & anesthesia, it's not unreasonable.

Overall, I think it's great for people to try to educate others not to do unnecessary unpleasant things to their animals, but that here at cs.com we need to be a little considerate of one another because I think we are all pretty passionate about trying to provide the best possible home to our herps, cats, dogs, birds, horses, fish, inverts & whatever else I missed. And I think we all need to be a little cautious about giving PETA/HSUS any more ammunition.

 

[Emily1188]

Many people who have true working dogs or show in obedience can & do manage an unaltered male dog.

That was my point exactly. :shrugs: It is not in anyway necessary to neuter a male dog in order for him to sane and sound, but many average pet owners cannot manage it. But, please, do not claim that it is inherent in an intact dog, because it's just too easy to prove wrong. If a dog has an unstable temperament, he should be neutered because he's a detriment to domestic dogs - but I wouldn't count on the neutering helping much. I also have to say that I think the "behavioral issues" associated with being intact are greatly exaggerated.

Some people feel that if you can't have an intact dog, you can't handle a dog. You know how the anti-declawing people say, "Cats come with claws!"? Well, some people say, "Dogs come with balls" - lol. Me? I say the more dogs that stay in safe homes, the better, and I'm in no way anti-altering when it's done for the right reasons.

In the case of tom cats, though, it's clearer -- almost no one can live with a tom cat as a pet. Unaltered toms spray EVERYWHERE. I don't support declawing at all, perhaps because to me it seems to benefit ONLY the human & because I see so many other ways the human can get the same benefits without mutilating the cat. But I won't claim I'm totally consistent on what gives me the squeemish feelings.

I agree, and was not addressing cats.

Overall, I think it's great for people to try to educate others not to do unnecessary unpleasant things to their animals

There are trainers and behaviorists who will claim that telling your dog "No" at any time is both unnecessary and unpleasant, and believe me, they would LOVE to "educate" anyone they come across.

How do we define this giant gray area?

 

[wstphal]

There are trainers and behaviorists who will claim that telling your dog "No" at any time is both unnecessary and unpleasant, and believe me, they would LOVE to "educate" anyone they come across.

How do we define this giant gray area?

Good question! Common sense maybe? Truly, I don't know :shrugs:

 

[Emily1188]

Good question! Common sense maybe? Truly, I don't know :shrugs:

Hehe, me either!

 

[tom e]

I'm not a fan, but:
If this person otherwise takes great care of this cat for it's whole life, he's a better pet owner then those whose dogs I see on the side of the road dead, or abandoned in the pound.:shrugs:

 

[wstphal]

@tom, you have a point!

 

[Lucille]

When I first saw the title of this thread, art and cruelty, I hesitated to click on it, I though it would be about goldfish. I know that goldfish might not mean a lot to some people, but I was extremely very upset by this purported art display:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3040891.stm

 

[tom e]

@tom, you have a point!

Thanks! I have to admit though, if a friend of mine did that to a pet, I'd be concerned about his mental health. :crazy01:
As far as pets as fashion accessories, I think we all do that to some extent. Docking and ear clipping (which I would do with breeds that I think 'should' look that way) was mentioned, but also just the fact that we have soooo many breeds out there goes into this as well. I really like heelers, and they can probably make good pets, but if I don't need a working dog why would I choose one? Lots of people do, and there's nothing wrong with that, even while I think our choices for breeds say something about our use of them to make a certain statement. To be clearer, I don't think it's necessarily harmful, but it is very often a kind of accessory IMO. The important thing to me is what kind of a life did you give that animal..

 

[Michael823]

True, it is definitely about what type of life you give that animal. But sometimes, something that may not be physically "cruel", tattooing, cropping, etc... can lead to giving certain animal a bad rep, therefor it can come around to hurt that animal, or others like it.

For example... Cropping a Pit Bulls ears, putting a giant chain on it, etc... may or may not be physically injurious to the dog itself. But the act of trying to make them look "tough" or "Mean absolutely leads to some of their bad rep, therefor leads to them being banned in certain areas, or killed due to a bad perception.

Just like carrying a 10' python around may not be directly harmful, but carrying it around irresponsibly can lead to impressions, that subsequently lead to action against them. So that's a reason why I personally take problem with aesthetically altering animals.

 

[Hypancistrus]

But I just don't like it, plain and simple.

And this is where the libertarian in me cries out.

You are totally allowed to dislike it. But if it's not hurting you, and it's not impinging on your freedoms, then it's really none of your business.

There is of course a line drawn. I think Emily's line is appropriate. If it causes significant, lasting damage to the animal or reduces their life span, then sure, put it under an animal cruelty law.

In this case, though, we really can't meet that definition.

 

[ForkedTung]

I have Ink...but I would never put any on my pets, besides they look cool just the way they are.

 

[Kokopelli]

I hear this time and time again, and yet when dealing with intact dogs and talking with those who keep intact (and unbred) dogs (it is uncommon for working dogs to be routinely altered) I see no evidence for it whatsoever. What I do see is that dogs who are kept with people who are serious about their training, exercise, and care are fine intact. That tells me that it's not a matter of something inherent to an intact dog, but rather a situational issue. I'm not suggesting that the average pet owner I see walking down the street everyday is suited to having an intact dog, but rather that I've yet to talk to the serious dog enthusiast that couldn't fix an issue with their dog before resorting to surgery. It's a human problem, a husbandry issue, and most altering done for keeping dogs as what people perceive as "easier pets".

Somehow, the dozens of intact animals that frequent my obedience club are just fine. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that their owners put in extra time and dedication than the average person, and not because they just got lucky and don't have violent, sexually frustrated animals.

If you support altering so that a pet may remain in its home, I assume you support declawing for the same reasons. While I would never declaw my own cat, I would rather see a declawed one than a dead one.



Of course - I couldn't agree more. But you said "absolute medical benefit", and given that Webster defines absolute as such, I have a hard time viewing preventative altering as benefiting the animal absolutely. Removing cancerous testicles is of absolute benefit; taking them from a healthy 6 month old pup is not.

If owners can remove their animal's sex organs to prevent cancer, why can't I dock my litter of Dobermans to prevent broken/bloody tails? It's disturbingly common if you talk to people, and because their tails lack almost any flesh, bone can be exposed quickly.

Does that then fit under procedures that are acceptable in the name prevention, having weighed the benefits and risks?

Reproductive cancer exists and I would never deny that, however, cut off anything and the chance for cancer in that organ disappears. Neutering increases the risk of prostate cancer in male dogs (way harder to operate on than the conveniently dangling testicles). It is by no means of clear and obvious benefit to the dog.

If I have to assume my dog will get out and impregnate another dog, I have to assume he will break his tail or shred his ears, especially if he's of a traditionally cropped or docked breed (since they often have thin ears/fragile tails). :shrugs: Why is one thing ok in the name of prevention, and not the others? And maybe my way of engineering things to prevent mistakes is to have a sturdy fence/kennel and excellent training on my intact dog, because I feel the health benefits are worth it.

Emily, there are whole lot of statistics the single person will not see obvious evidence of. The chances for having a deformed child are extremely low... try to tell that to a mother who had one. Statistics is sometimes meaningless to the individual... but you can't ignore it just because you didn't see something to confirm it.
You can't know how many dogs/cats were spared cancer due to an operation- because that's preventative medicine.
No single person can conduct an empirical study without doing so deliberately- you can rely on your own instincts and ignore the statistics... but studies show and confirm the issue with that type of cancer.
As I once said- I knew a man who kept dogs for 15 years, he never had them vaccinated- so since none of them got sick he decided vaccinating them is unnecessary... which is wrong. "Experience is a dear teacher, but only fools will learn at no other".

 

[Emily1188]

Emily, there are whole lot of statistics the single person will not see obvious evidence of. The chances for having a deformed child are extremely low... try to tell that to a mother who had one. Statistics is sometimes meaningless to the individual... but you can't ignore it just because you didn't see something to confirm it.
.

I said I would never seek to deny that reproductive cancer exists. So frankly, I'm not sure what this is about - I can't help but feel like you're leading the conversation somewhere different out of avoidance.

I never, ever suggested anyone ignore reproductive cancer, so please do not make it out like I did. I'm simply suggesting that eliminating the risk for reproductive cancer can also heighten the risk for other cancers. Similarly, you have no way of knowing how many dogs died of osteosarcoma that would have avoided it were they not altered early, or how many dogs will suffer from hypothyroidism that could have avoided it were they not altered. In the states, the stats for dogs dying of testicular cancer are thought to be less than 1%. Of course, bitches are much more prone to mammary cancer, which is why I would likely spay a non-breeding bitch after she matured.

To suggest, however, that routine altering in the name of prevention is of "absolute" benefit to the animal is false. Spare the dog one health condition, subject them to the other. It is all about the owner and their dog, and making the decision that is right for them.

Which is why I reserve the right to perform other elective procedures on my pets.

 

[Emily1188]

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

 

[desertanimal]

Still, I simply don't believe that cropping a dog's ears will make it significantly less likely to come out of a hog hunt with significantly fewer injuries.

Well sorry to burst your bubble but it's true.

I'll take the p-value you've derived from a binomial test of incidence of significant injuries sustained by cropped versus non-cropped dogs in hog hunts whenever you have it. Of course I'd like to see the methodology by which you quantified "significant" injuries to make sure that you didn't collect data in biased manner, you know, to be sure that you had some rigorous method by which to quantify "injury." Fear not, you haven't burst my bubble. I'm certainly not saying that uncropped ears aren't more likely to get injured than cropped ones. What I'm suggesting is that, once a dog has gotten close enough to slashing porcine canines to have his ears injured, I'm not sure I believe that he won't have significant injuries regardless of whether his ears are also injured. The best test of this, of course, would be to crop only one ear of a sample of hog-hunting dogs (a sample large enough to achieve sufficient statistical power) to see whether floppy ears, in particular, significantly elevate the risk of injury to a dog in a boar hunt. Short of that, we could still go with the quantification of facial injuries to a large sample of cropped vs non-cropped dogs boar-hunting dogs. If those data are already available, I'd be very interested to see them. If not, I'd like to see them when you have them. If your tests demonstrate that cropping significantly decreases the risk of facial injury to dogs during high-risk activities, I'll become your advocate.

That was my point exactly. :shrugs: It is not in anyway necessary to neuter a male dog in order for him to sane and sound, but many average pet owners cannot manage it. But, please, do not claim that it is inherent in an intact dog, because it's just too easy to prove wrong. If a dog has an unstable temperament, he should be neutered because he's a detriment to domestic dogs - but I wouldn't count on the neutering helping much. I also have to say that I think the "behavioral issues" associated with being intact are greatly exaggerated.

Some people feel that if you can't have an intact dog, you can't handle a dog. You know how the anti-declawing people say, "Cats come with claws!"? Well, some people say, "Dogs come with balls" - lol. Me? I say the more dogs that stay in safe homes, the better, and I'm in no way anti-altering when it's done for the right reasons.

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that when you live in a place where you have to have your dog around other dogs, intact dogs can be an issue. We got our pit mix when he was two. Before he was neutured, which I would ALWAYS do to prevent any possibility of unwanted puppies--we already have enough of those, other dogs just WOULD NOT leave him alone. Male dogs, especially intact male dogs, would hassle him. We never had a fight break out, but I knew that if one did because Zeke lost his patience, he would win and we'd be in trouble because he is a pittie.

In large part, Emily, I agree with you. Cats come with claws. Dogs come with balls. But dogs also come with, um, ears. I think in the societies that we live in, animals are always best-off without their balls, almost without exception (heck, I think that about humans, too, but I don't get to make choices for other people). The more homeless dogs there are, the less likely any one of them will have a full belly and a warm place to sleep. But I think there are very few situations in which animals are best-off without their ears, and those situations involve even greater risk to the animal and are deliberately created by the owner.

You say that you are pro-altering if it's done for the right reasons. What, pray tell, is the "right reason" for sending your dog to fight a several-hundred pound boar? Get real. Don't go on about 1) cat obesity being neglect on the one hand, which is a common by-product of indoor-only cat-living, which results in, statistically, a much longer lifespan than the fit and trim outdoor kitties, while 2) championing cutting the ears off dogs so that they can more safely be sent into inarguably dangerous situations with no obvious benefit to society or the dog itself on the other.

And Oren, your position is entirely untenable.

Any medical procedure/physical alteration made for owner's behalf rather than the benefit of the animal is in my eyes abominable, period. Animals were not created to amuse us, inflicting pain for something they cannot appreciate nor is in their absolute medical welfare is as far as I am concerned, crossing the line.

According to your position as you originally articulated it, you can't eat meat if the cattle were branded or ear-notched, you can't eat animal by-products if so much as a rope was passed through the septum of the animal in question to keep it confined. And that also means you can't eat any of the crops produced with animals who are tethered by ropes through their noses. So far as I've seen where people still keep animals to till their fields, that's all of them.

 

[desertanimal]

Sorry--I meant to add that after we had Zeke neutered, other male dogs don't hassle him anymore. And really, he seems much happier with that situation, poor boy. He likes to play; he doesn't like weird doggie boy-tension.

 

[Tracee]

When I first saw the title of this thread, art and cruelty, I hesitated to click on it, I though it would be about goldfish. I know that goldfish might not mean a lot to some people, but I was extremely very upset by this purported art display:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3040891.stm

Oh my word... I'm no goldfish lover but that just seems unnecessarily cruel to me. I know some people have a morbid fascination with death but if that was a larger (or more 'cute') animal than a fish, there would've been outrage. If the artist really "wanted to force people to do battle with their conscience" then the blenders could've been OFF the whole time without the general public knowing, and they'd still be choosing whether or not to push a button they thought would kill the fish if they did. But, Court rules, I guess that's the difference between our cultures :shrugs:

Back on topic (though I know it's gone off a bit anyway)... I don't see tattooing an ID onto a dog or cat in the same light as this. An ID code tattooed on at the same time as another procedure actually seems like quite a good idea, though it's never crossed my mind before. The tattoo in the link posted is BIG, it covers the whole cat's chest! I've racked up 10 hours in the tattoo chair so I'm not exactly soft but I feel that would cause the cat unnecessary pain, albeit for a relatively short period of time. I don't know why you would put an animal under anaesthetic unnecessarily either... But I'm a cat lover so I would say that