Published On: Thu, May 7th, 2015 on 5:00 pm

Photo of cat with ears PIERCED causes shock online

Share This
Tags

A photo of a cat with its ears pierced has provoked an outrage from pet owners on social media.

Cats Ear Pierced

The image has shocked people worldwide.

The photo was brought to public attention after a social media user asked others to share and report the person who had posted it up.

Cats Ear Pierced

Image: Facebook.

The person who had posted the image wrote: “Just pierced my cats ears :^) He was bleeding and scratching all the way through. But he seems fine now :)”.

In one day, the social post had been shared over 100,000 times.

One person wrote: “What kind of fool actually performs this?!? This is so cruel and ridiculous!”

Another wrote: “Please find this poor kitty and make it so the individual is never allowed to have an animal in her care again.”

Although the post shows it was posted up recently, a Google search ties the same photo with news of a woman who attempted to turn three kittens into ‘Gothic cats’ by piercing their ears and necks and removing their tails.

The 36-year-old pet groomer from Pennsylvania, tried to sell the kittens on eBay for $100 and was found guilty of animal cruelty a couple of years ago.

She was sentenced to six months of home detention and electronic monitoring.

However, in many news stories, this photo is not used, which has led many to believe this photo is a fresh case of cruelty.

About the Author

Guest Editorial

- The work of guest writers who publish original content to the Yorkshire Standard. All material is copyrighted and belongs to the Yorkshire Standard.

Displaying 21 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. hazel Jamieson says:

    So cruel and heartless… Yet we allow little children and babies to get their ears pierced too!!!

  2. Jan Wood says:

    Why show this on fb,, I agree it’s very cruel and disgusting,, but there are IDIOTS out there who will think it is funny and good,, and they will try it out, always happens,, there are so many sick people out there,,,

  3. Kevin tartis says:

    What’s the difference between this and piercing infants ears? the answer is nothing. It’s exactly the same thing. But yet No one says that cruel.

    • Grace says:

      Baby’s ear’s are pierced with sterile equipment designed to pierce human ears. Parents understand the risks and are informed of the aftercare for ear piercing. It only takes a few seconds, and a topical anesthetic can be used. Piercings don’t effect people like they could a kitten. The ears of a kitten are important sensory organs. You can’t just jam earrings into a kitten’s sensitve ears. This doesn’t compare to piercing a baby’s ears at all.

    • SARAH says:

      I CAME HERE TO SOLELY SAY THAT.

  4. Jamesie says:

    I could very well be wrong but this probably just could be a troll…if you google Jamie Johnson you will find a director/actor who is 36 years old, and if you look at the pictures of the previous crime committed you will observe that their ears weighed down with piercings and the person charged was 36 years old. This kitten is clearly younger and the so called piercings don’t look like they weigh a thing. Probably stick on rhinestones

  5. Auntiecatowner says:

    This photo is old. I ran a search on it and found it on a website from well over a year ago. As for the name on the photo, it could easily have been photoshopped in order to harass an innocent person. Why has this photo suddenly emerged after over a year and is now part of a FB chat apparently?

  6. Billir Ciotti says:

    Jamie Johnson was a fake profile, this cat is not the same from the 2010 case of Gothic cats. There is only one article tying the photos(that I’ve found so far) and it dates April 24, 2014 After this photo was shared. The owner admitted the earrings are magnetic.. You can find the correct story on Facebook by Ryan Wolf.

  7. Parker says:

    This is not related to the 2011 case. The woman involved in 2011 was Holly Crawford. The kittens involved were black. This woman here is Jamie Johnson. She needs to be convicted of animal cruelty as well.

  8. Dale says:

    some one should post her contact info and business info if she has any.

  9. Bess moore says:

    Hang that stupid fool!! She is disgusting!!

  10. Dave says:

    It is not the same person .The person who did this has had their name removed from the picture .His or her name is Jamie Johnson .The goth cat abuser was called crawford .

  11. WeWillNotBeSilencedAboutHunters says:

    It is NOT the same case. The white kitten photo is a year old and was posted by ‘Jamie Johnson’ . Not connected to the 2011 ‘goth’ cats woman who was prosecuted. Come on journalists do your research properly please

  12. Meouch !!! says:

    This is clearly a former of abuse. The owner needs to be found and felt with by the appropriate authorities. Sadly people who have this disregard for the health and well being of their pets probable have the same standards for their fellow humans.

  13. Becka says:

    IT IS NOT THE SAME PERSON. this one needs to be found.

  14. Edith says:

    Why is she still allowed to Whave animals in her care when she’s already had charges against her for animal abuse???
    obviously she needs to learn the hard way perhaps she needs jail time second time around…

    • Entropic Organ says:

      She had six months home detention for the animal abuse. She is now in jail for a double murder.

  15. Gemma Macmillan says:

    Why are you hiding her name? It’s everywhere. Everyone deserves to know it’s a girl names Jamie Johnson.

    • Entropic Organ says:

      Jamie Johnson does not exist. It was a fake Facebook account created by Juan Cantu, who stole images from Brittany Wright’s profile. This is a severe case of identity theft.

  16. AreYouSure says:

    The 2011 case involved a woman trying to create “gothic” cats, which were black. This cat is not black, and the name in the photo does not match the name (at all) of the convicted woman. I’m not convinced it’s the same.

Leave a comment

Your comment will be approved before it is published.

Comments containing profanity, spam or web links will NOT be approved.