TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Cosmetic Surgery
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cosmetic Surgery - Page 2

post #31 of 46
I have to say, existing laws really don't cover everything. Using an existing law to set a precident isn't easy, and many times doesn't work.

Hypothetically, say you bring charges against some idiot who is using the rubber band method to dock tails. You convince the DA to support you on this and charge him with Animal Cruelty (a misdemeanor since there was no malicious intent nor death or torture) and Practicing Veterinary Medicine without a License. Now this guy gets a decent lawyer, who brings up "expert" witnesses on livestock husbandry and says that some farmers have been using this method on their animals for years. (Even if it's wrong, he is trying to prove it is a "generally accepted method of animal husbandry", which is an exemption to Cruelty in many states...) The lawyer also argues that since it is commonly practiced by many others who are not Veterinarians, that charge cannot be valid either. The judge, even sympathetic, agrees that this raises reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the charges, and the charges are dismissed. NOW you have a precident, not in your favor. Which makes passing a separate law as a second try to do the same thing that much more difficult.

Passing a law like this (although clarified as to intent) and amending the current Animal Cruelty law will make the charges indisputable by fast-talking lawyers. The biggest obstacle I see is making the legislation clear enough so you don't have the AKC and other dog associations lobbying hard against it, which would pretty well kill the chances of it getting passed.
post #32 of 46
Just my 2 cents...if you put forth an anti-declaw, it is likely to meet somewhat strong resistance.

Spotz
post #33 of 46
One that only banned declawing passed in West Hollywood. This has many more features that are worthy of backing, IMO, thus having a better chance of getting passed.
post #34 of 46
I know about that one...what a shame...but things that happen in California don't really surprise me anymore

Spotz
post #35 of 46
Mark, I don't know if you're still checking in on this thread, but I've got a quick question for you. Re: declawing (as banned because it's considered cosmetic surgery). If it is necessary for a cat's health, it's allowed. But if a family is considering euthanizing a cat because it's destroying their curtains and furniture, the cat being declawed (theoretically) is better than the cat being euthanized.

Is un-necessary (meaning not due to medical reason) euthanization illegal?
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Kumpf
I am working on some codes to prohibit "cosmetic" surgery on pets within certain guidelines. I am looking or input from others here on whether they thinks its a good idea as well as suggestions for the terms used.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to cosmetically alter any companion animal. The only exception to this shall be for procedures performed under proper anesthesia, by a veterinarian licensed in the Commonwealth, and certified to be medically necessary to preserve the animals health and safety by said veterinarian. For the purposese of this code, 'tail docking', 'ear cropping', 'debarking' and 'declawing' shall be considered 'cosmetic' practices. A violation of this section shall be a class 1 misdemeanor."


I am not looking to prevent necessary procedures and, if the veterinarian is willing to put their professional reputation on the line, then they can approve the practice as long as they do it themselves.

Your input please.
Mark, are you familiar with EU law? The above-mentioned practices are illegal here, and their prohibition is widely supported. Just to give an example: Declawing is illegal, unless necessary for the physical well-being of the cat. A concrete case I'm aware of is a polydactyl cat who couldn't retract some of her claws, which were digging into the pads of her paws. The options were amputating some toes, or partial declawing, and the latter option was chosen.
I'll see if I can find some stuff on the law in English.

Here's some info on the "European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals" adopted by the European Council, which the EU also now subscribes to: http://www.saveourbreeds.org.uk/convention.htm#Adopted
post #37 of 46
Thread Starter 
Still checking the thread. I have been following the EU stuff and may look to that as a model for my city. The code would allow the VET to be the decision maker.
post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Kumpf
I have never been a proponent of cutting off the "bits that don't look right". If pets had been intended to look a certain way, then they would have come that way 'direct from the manufacturer'!
Oi. I agree.. the only time that it is appropriate to cut of the bits that don't look right, is when you're prepping a meal for cooking, and generally I mean potato roots. Well I guss cancer is another reason to cut the bits off... but most of that isn't a "doesn't look right"
But I took the poll and answered contrary to what I meant to.. It's too early in the morning.
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by okeefecl
I think this is a great idea, but you probably will get a lot of flack from breeders and showers, along with some of the national organizations. Obviously, some breed standards *require* cosmetic surgery before animals can be shown or bred. Have you given this thought?
There was some flak in Europe after the convention banning cropping, etc., was adopted, but the dog and cat associations allowed a long transition period before adhering to the new standards. There haven't been too many complaints from dog breeders in recent years, but some cat breeds can no longer be shown in many European countries (totally flat-faced Persians, Munchkins, Sphynx, or deaf cats) and many breeders are still angry about that, and complain of being "mobbed" in countries where showing them is still allowed.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Still checking the thread. I have been following the EU stuff and may look to that as a model for my city. The code would allow the VET to be the decision maker.
But don't vets make a good amount of money from declawing?? I've heard some vets actually "push" the procedure.

Katie
post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
But don't vets make a good amount of money from declawing?? I've heard some vets actually "push" the procedure.

Katie
I believe that's a big part of the problem, and it disgusts me. I'm all in favor of boycotting vets who declaw or debark.
post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
But don't vets make a good amount of money from declawing?? I've heard some vets actually "push" the procedure.

Katie
Greedy vets make good money from this, as well as most other procedures. They cut costs, often using the same syringe multiple times, and using lower quality surgical materials, and often less than adequate procedure.

Most vets out to make money on declawing, use nail clippers for the surgery, because it is fast and "effective".

Allowing a vet to make the decision, without dictating the definition of "Medically Necessary", gives a greedy vet creative license to interpret the law.

Declawing needs to have a certification program. Not enough vets actually know how to do the procedure, or how to determine objectively wether or not it is necessary.

Honest vets would never push any procedure unless there was a valid reason. Honest vets are objective, and willing to spend time with the owner and discuss the various aspects of animal husbandry. Honest vets don't usually make a lot of money, just like honest breeders. The sad part is that Honest anythings are getting harder and harder to find.

Bans don't work, history has proven this time and again...

Spotz
post #43 of 46
The other day when I was in the vet's office with Nakita for a check up I overheard a woman discussing having her kitten de-clawed with one of the workers there. Me being the out-spoken person that I am came right out and told the women right in front of the vet-tech what they actually do to the cat when it is de-clawed. The woman's face turned thirteen shades of red and then went white when I told her how they cut the end of the toe off.

The best part is the vet-tech agreed with me and looked relieved that this person actually changed her mind about the little kitten. I hope that the vet-tech didn't get into trouble and I sure as L don't give a d@#% what the vet thinks about me. I told the lady that owns the kitten about alternate things that can be done to keep the baby from clawing her furniture. I hope that the lady doesn't change her mind. But I know that right then there was one little kitten that still has his/her claws because of the education that I have learned since joining TCS
post #44 of 46
You go girl Cathi!!!!!!!!!! Woohooo!
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Kumpf
Surgical debarking is used to prevent dogs from being capable of making sounds. There are a couple of methods but it usually involves clipping the vocal cords and rendering the animal capable of expelling air only (more like a wheeze). It has been ordered in several court cases to correct a nuisance barking animal (in lieu of ordering the dog euthanized) and is becoming very popular in fighting and security dogs (most owned by less than legal people) as a means to offer no warning of the dog until it actually bites someone. Nasty surprise indeed.
A lot of fighting rings do use debarking, as well as puppymillers on their 'breeding stock'. Sadly, these type of people don't particularly care about the pain it causes the dogs, and many do it at home themselves. Suffice it to say it involves a straightened coat hanger. As far as it being ordered in court cases, the people who ordered it should have thier vocal cords punctured with a coat hanger. I'm sorry... But debarking is a particular pet peeve of mine. A few years back we adopted a dog from a shelter and she had been debarked. I was furious.
post #46 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by blondiecat
The other day when I was in the vet's office with Nakita for a check up I overheard a woman discussing having her kitten de-clawed with one of the workers there. Me being the out-spoken person that I am came right out and told the women right in front of the vet-tech what they actually do to the cat when it is de-clawed. The woman's face turned thirteen shades of red and then went white when I told her how they cut the end of the toe off.

The best part is the vet-tech agreed with me and looked relieved that this person actually changed her mind about the little kitten. I hope that the vet-tech didn't get into trouble and I sure as L don't give a d@#% what the vet thinks about me. I told the lady that owns the kitten about alternate things that can be done to keep the baby from clawing her furniture. I hope that the lady doesn't change her mind. But I know that right then there was one little kitten that still has his/her claws because of the education that I have learned since joining TCS
Cathi, that was the best thing you could have done! Way to go!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Cosmetic Surgery