Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 14, 2014, 08:20 AM   #26
GoCubsGo
macrumors Nehalem
 
GoCubsGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
At least you acknowledge that the precedent was set centuries ago, but cropping ears and tales seems to go mostly unnoticed. Same goes for selective breeding, imo. Not all reasons for selective breeding has to do with a working functional characteristic (like sheep dog) other than to please the whim of a human.

Regarding declawed cats, and as the previous owner of 3 cats simultaneously (they have all passed on), for indoor cats, this is a must IMO, for which there is a good reason, for the home owner, but not necessarily for the cat unless as you considered, it was making the cat compatible and allowed it to continue living in a human home and enjoying as far as domestication goes, a good life.

If there is an indication that a tattoo would cause an animal continuing discomfort, then I would have to rethink my position.
I can't say the dog is uncomfortable after a tattoo, no one will probably be able to say that with any scientific backing. It is just something that seemed hard to look at. As for the cat, I agree. For me it was a matter of dropping him off knowing he'd be put to sleep within a certain time frame or declawing. It was not for not trying, I wished it hadn't come to that. I was nervous about the outcome of things but with extra precautions taken, he was in good hands and seems to be okay 5 years later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gibbsjoh View Post
1. The dog will have a recovery time during which it will be in pain/discomfort and at risk of infection. Also, it was unable to give consent. Marking an animal for identification (like a small marking in the ear) seems reasonable as it is there to help the animal's wellbeing should it go missing. I've never heard of the ear tattoo thing but my cats are all microchipped. Re: branding of cattle, I'm vegetarian so no real point in weighing in on that

2. Re: declawing, if you're cutting the end off your cat's toes because you love your sofa, you need to reconsider animal ownership. It's illegal here in the UK for good reason - it's mutilation and affects the cat's wellbeing.

I'm not a PETA member or generally even a supporter of theirs (toolbags that they tend to be) but animal rights are very important. I can't understand how some of the replies here are so flippant.

JG
Re declawing. If you were responding at all to what I wrote then you didn't read at all. However, taking into account that it is not about what I wrote (or me in general) I will agree that if declawing comes as a result of trying to save a couch then by all means, perhaps pet ownership is something to reconsider. I, however, did not have a choice. Had he decided that my couch was his target then I would have dealt with it, as I wrote above. He did not. His chosen target was carpet that is laid in apartments that I do not own. The outcome was severely damaging the carpets which resulted in excessive fees being charged for repairs or do have him declawed so that he and I could enjoy life together. Dropping him off somewhere that will likely end in his untimely death seemed to be slightly worse than the "mutilation" of his toes.

I did the front, never the rear, not that it matters. His well being was taken into account thus the increased cost of tests and monitors during surgery. In the end, I again express, 5 years later he is as happy as any cat seems to be and in fact, the only change I saw in him was he tends to be more open to meeting people in the house. Before he would hide for days. I can't say there is a direct correlation, but that change occurred after surgery.

I stand by my decision because once again, it allowed him to continue to live here and live in general. Killing a cat because shelters are riddled with them happens far too frequently.
GoCubsGo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2014, 10:36 AM   #27
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by gibbsjoh View Post
1. The dog will have a recovery time during which it will be in pain/discomfort and at risk of infection. Also, it was unable to give consent. Marking an animal for identification (like a small marking in the ear) seems reasonable as it is there to help the animal's wellbeing should it go missing. I've never heard of the ear tattoo thing but my cats are all microchipped. Re: branding of cattle, I'm vegetarian so no real point in weighing in on that

2. Re: declawing, if you're cutting the end off your cat's toes because you love your sofa, you need to reconsider animal ownership. It's illegal here in the UK for good reason - it's mutilation and affects the cat's wellbeing.

I'm not a PETA member or generally even a supporter of theirs (toolbags that they tend to be) but animal rights are very important. I can't understand how some of the replies here are so flippant.

JG
In their dominion of the planet, human beings have never asked for an animals consent as if animals could give it. Owners may or may not take the animals well being into account, especially if you plan on eating them. Usually for pets, they do, but what is in the best interests of the animal is mostly up to the owner.

Regarding declawing, if you have exclusively indoor cats, declawing does not adverse a cat's well being. You know how cats like to kneed you leg? All of my cats after being declawed continued this friendly action as if they had their claws. They even sharpened their imaginary claws on my Yamaha speakers which would have been a huge deal if in reality they have been shredding them. I saw no adverse effects. And as we've discussed, a cat would be decidedly be better off in a good home versus being feral, or in the pound.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.

Last edited by Huntn; Mar 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2014, 12:42 PM   #28
Tomorrow
macrumors 603
 
Tomorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Always a day away
Quote:
Originally Posted by gibbsjoh View Post
1. The dog will have a recovery time during which it will be in pain/discomfort and at risk of infection. Also, it was unable to give consent.
Consent?!? Jeebus, it's a dog, not a person.
__________________
I would scream just to be heard, as if yelling at the stars - I was bleeding just to feel.
You would never say a word, kept me reaching in the dark - always something to conceal.
Tomorrow is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2014, 05:15 AM   #29
phrehdd
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
Consent?!? Jeebus, it's a dog, not a person.
Dogs are pets not by choice and put up with considerable abuse or non-quality care and we as humans have the capacity to treat them humanely. I hope you don't have any pets because obviously you really don't get the point that was being made.
phrehdd is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2014, 08:24 AM   #30
SkyBell
macrumors 603
 
SkyBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas, unfortunately.
The part I don't get is this:
Quote:
Veterinarians sometimes tag dogs with small tatoos after operations — but vanity tattoos are not the same, she said.

“It helps animal-welfare professionals clearly identify animals that have been altered . . . The incident in question is not at all comparable, ” she said.
I suppose one could argue the differences in "motives" between identification and vanity tattoos but the way I see it, the end result is still exactly the same thing - a tattoo the animal did not ask for.

I don't think a dog cares much if any what gets tattooed into its flesh - all they know is it was an unpleasant experience. As long as owners don't use their pets as a living, breathing tattoo exhibit, I see no practical reason why it would be frowned upon.
__________________
MR's PowerPC Fangirl
eMac 1.42 GHz G4 - 10.5.8
12" PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz - 10.4.11
Blueberry iBook G3, Apple IIc
SkyBell is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2014, 10:20 AM   #31
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrehdd View Post
Dogs are pets not by choice and put up with considerable abuse or non-quality care and we as humans have the capacity to treat them humanely. I hope you don't have any pets because obviously you really don't get the point that was being made.
No offense, but you sound like PETA. Let's put some science into it and figure out a way to allow our pets to give their consent for everything, including to be pets. And if they don't want to be pets, what would you suggest be done with them? How about if they don't like being confined to the yard where many cities have ordinances about loose animals?

On a different note, I had 3 cats (at one time), they were all declawed, and they were all over me every day craving affection. I suppose they could have been suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.

Last edited by Huntn; Mar 15, 2014 at 12:32 PM.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2014, 12:50 PM   #32
Tomorrow
macrumors 603
 
Tomorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Always a day away
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrehdd View Post
I hope you don't have any pets because obviously you really don't get the point that was being made.
I get the point, I just don't agree with it.

If you own a pet, you don't need it's consent for anything. I'm not saying that gives you a free pass to be cruel, but you're answering to humans if you mistreat an animal. You don't need the animal's permission, you need society's.
__________________
I would scream just to be heard, as if yelling at the stars - I was bleeding just to feel.
You would never say a word, kept me reaching in the dark - always something to conceal.
Tomorrow is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2014, 05:07 PM   #33
phrehdd
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
I get the point, I just don't agree with it.

If you own a pet, you don't need it's consent for anything. I'm not saying that gives you a free pass to be cruel, but you're answering to humans if you mistreat an animal. You don't need the animal's permission, you need society's.
This is not about consent, it is about putting an animal through discomfort for the sake of vanity. If an animal knew it was going to be put through some pain for no apparent reason, it would most likely back off and try to avoid it. They often don't because they trust* their masters. I hope you understand my point.

Now just a bit curious - dogs have fur and wouldn't that cover up the tattoo? Why do it? Of course one could continually shave the dog's fur off to show that tattoo and refer to the owner that screams for attention.
phrehdd is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2014, 07:35 PM   #34
Michael Goff
macrumors 68040
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrehdd View Post
This is not about consent, it is about putting an animal through discomfort for the sake of vanity. If an animal knew it was going to be put through some pain for no apparent reason, it would most likely back off and try to avoid it. They often don't because they trust* their masters. I hope you understand my point.

Now just a bit curious - dogs have fur and wouldn't that cover up the tattoo? Why do it? Of course one could continually shave the dog's fur off to show that tattoo and refer to the owner that screams for attention.
There was no discomfort, no pain, it was sedated. And if the fur is white and thin, you'd be able to see color ink through it. :|
__________________
Surface Pro 3 i5/256gb
Windows 8.1
Michael Goff is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2014, 07:39 PM   #35
phrehdd
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Goff View Post
There was no discomfort, no pain, it was sedated. And if the fur is white and thin, you'd be able to see color ink through it. :|
Any vet can tell you it is not a good practice to arbitrarily sedate a dog. There are always risks. Here is another case of justifying some vanity at the expense of a "pet." As for short hair dogs, sorry but a tattoo would still be veiled somewhat. Was the dog in the original posting an all white dog with very very short hair?

FYI - to be totally "pain free" during the process, a dog would have to be unconscious not just "sedated." To simply make a dog groggy doesn't guarantee any facet of the process being painless. Again, putting a dog fully under is an unnecessary elective medical action. You can argue until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts as put forth be the veterinarian practice.
phrehdd is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2014, 08:48 PM   #36
Michael Goff
macrumors 68040
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrehdd View Post
Any vet can tell you it is not a good practice to arbitrarily sedate a dog. There are always risks. Here is another case of justifying some vanity at the expense of a "pet." As for short hair dogs, sorry but a tattoo would still be veiled somewhat. Was the dog in the original posting an all white dog with very very short hair?

FYI - to be totally "pain free" during the process, a dog would have to be unconscious not just "sedated." To simply make a dog groggy doesn't guarantee any facet of the process being painless. Again, putting a dog fully under is an unnecessary elective medical action. You can argue until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts as put forth be the veterinarian practice.
Did you read the article? He had been put under for surgery. :|
__________________
Surface Pro 3 i5/256gb
Windows 8.1
Michael Goff is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2014, 07:11 AM   #37
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrehdd View Post
Any vet can tell you it is not a good practice to arbitrarily sedate a dog. There are always risks. Here is another case of justifying some vanity at the expense of a "pet." As for short hair dogs, sorry but a tattoo would still be veiled somewhat. Was the dog in the original posting an all white dog with very very short hair?

FYI - to be totally "pain free" during the process, a dog would have to be unconscious not just "sedated." To simply make a dog groggy doesn't guarantee any facet of the process being painless. Again, putting a dog fully under is an unnecessary elective medical action. You can argue until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts as put forth be the veterinarian practice.

Seriously? I know people don't read linked articles but the OP quoted this:

“She had her spleen removed yesterday, and the vet let me tattoo her while she was under,” he said.
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2014, 08:01 AM   #38
phrehdd
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Seriously? I know people don't read linked articles but the OP quoted this:

“She had her spleen removed yesterday, and the vet let me tattoo her while she was under,” he said.
Ever had a tattoo? Anyone who has knows there is irritation in the region where the tattoo was created. The longer a dog is kept under, the higher the risks. This is not an opinion but a fact.
phrehdd is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2014, 10:32 AM   #39
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
I wonder why this thread is reminding me of the PETA "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" campaign?



If you google PETA Ads you'll see quite a few provocative images involving semi-clothed models and celebrities.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2014, 09:24 AM   #40
Tomorrow
macrumors 603
 
Tomorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Always a day away
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrehdd View Post
This is not about consent
My comment - the one to which you replied - most certainly was about consent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gibbsjoh View Post
1. The dog will have a recovery time during which it will be in pain/discomfort and at risk of infection. Also, it was unable to give consent.
You even brought it up yourself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by phrehdd View Post
Dogs are pets not by choice
__________________
I would scream just to be heard, as if yelling at the stars - I was bleeding just to feel.
You would never say a word, kept me reaching in the dark - always something to conceal.
Tomorrow is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 11:41 AM   #41
Kissaragi
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
I think it looks kinda cool.

I don't really get why all the fuss. People are generally okay with "altering" their pets (as mentioned in the article), de-clawing them, cutting off their nards, cropping their ears, docking their tails, making them wear sweaters in the winter - but a tattoo gets people outraged? Doesn't make sense to me.
Neutering is for their own health, not to satisfy the vanity of the owner (i presume thats what you mean by cutting off nards?).

Declawing is an evil practice, cropping ears and tails is pointless and stupid unless its a working dog. People who make their pets wear clothes need to seek psychological help unless its a hairless variety that genuinely needs the extra warmth sometimes.

People that tattoo pets for fun (id tats in the ears are a good idea) should be prosecuted for animal cruelty.
Kissaragi is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Current Events

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How can I get iTunes not to consider “Various Artists” an artist in the artist view? Dequanizatifici Mac Applications and Mac App Store 2 Mar 7, 2014 02:24 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:43 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC