Call it what it is: killed NOT euthanized

[Joe Pitt]

I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in
animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that
is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure
to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and
it softens what is happening in their minds.

I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was due to be
euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due to be
KILLED.

It may seem a small thing, but when you talk to people it may help their
awareness of the problem.

Every day
10,000 human babies are born
70,000 kittens and puppies are born
If every infant when home with a kitten or puppy there would still be 60,000
left to find homes.
Most of them never will.

--
Joe
http://www.jwpitt.com/cats.htm
Cat Rescue http://www.animalrescuefoundation.com
God created the cat so man could have the pleasure of petting the tiger

[Mary]

"Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
. ..
> I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and
dogs) in
> animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an
animal that
> is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the
failure
> to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees
'euthanized' and
> it softens what is happening in their minds.
>
> I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was
due to be
> euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due
to be
> KILLED.
>
> It may seem a small thing, but when you talk to people it may help
their
> awareness of the problem.
>
> Every day
> 10,000 human babies are born
> 70,000 kittens and puppies are born
> If every infant when home with a kitten or puppy there would still
be 60,000
> left to find homes.
> Most of them never will.
>
> --

Thank you, Joe. You are absolutely right. I used the term out of
habit, not stopping to think about the distinction you note.

[Mr Nangla]

Hey Joe,

This is very true, I find myself stumped sometimes when explaining to my
little cousins why my cat can't have babies because of all the 'unwanted'
cats and dogs that are 'euthanized'. It's funny how the kids can see through
all the crap and ask 'but why'.

Regards,

Sonny
London, England

"Mary" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and
> dogs) in
> > animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an
> animal that
> > is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> > perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the
> failure
> > to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees
> 'euthanized' and
> > it softens what is happening in their minds.
> >
> > I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was
> due to be
> > euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due
> to be
> > KILLED.
> >
> > It may seem a small thing, but when you talk to people it may help
> their
> > awareness of the problem.
> >
> > Every day
> > 10,000 human babies are born
> > 70,000 kittens and puppies are born
> > If every infant when home with a kitten or puppy there would still
> be 60,000
> > left to find homes.
> > Most of them never will.
> >
> > --
>
> Thank you, Joe. You are absolutely right. I used the term out of
> habit, not stopping to think about the distinction you note.
>
>

[-L.]

"Joe Pitt" > wrote in message >...
> I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in
> animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that
> is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure
> to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and
> it softens what is happening in their minds.

It's not good and it's not right, and I certainly wish it never had to
happen. But death by lethal injection is more *humane* than death on
the streets, death by prolonged disease, death by dog or other
predator, being hit by cars, or shot or maimed by a human. It is even
preferrable to prolonged life in a cage. No, it isn't euthanasia, in
the proper meaning of the word, but it is better than the
alternatives.

-L.

[Phil P.]

"Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
. ..
> I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in
> animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that
> is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure
> to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and
> it softens what is happening in their minds.
>
> I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was due to
be
> euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due to be
> KILLED.
>
> It may seem a small thing, but when you talk to people it may help their
> awareness of the problem.

Maybe if everyone used the correct terms that describes exactly what it is,
more people would be outraged and sickened enough to force legislation to
eliminate it -- like mandatory neuter before adoption or sale (health
permiting) and subsidize vets or give them a tax deduction for neutering all
animals in their care regardless of the owners' consent or ability to pay.

I use the terms "excecute", "put to death", "slaughter"... because they
stick in peoples' throats and are much harder to swallow than "put to sleep"
or euthanize" or "put down".

[Wendy]

"-L." > wrote in message
...
"Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
>...
> I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in
> animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that
> is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure
> to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and
> it softens what is happening in their minds.

It's not good and it's not right, and I certainly wish it never had to
happen. But death by lethal injection is more *humane* than death on
the streets, death by prolonged disease, death by dog or other
predator, being hit by cars, or shot or maimed by a human. It is even
preferrable to prolonged life in a cage. No, it isn't euthanasia, in
the proper meaning of the word, but it is better than the
alternatives.

-L.

That should read the possibility of death on the streets etc.

The cat may not agree with you but it makes people feel better.

[-L.]

"Wendy" > wrote in message >...
> "-L." > wrote in message
> ...
> "Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
> >...
> > I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in
> > animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that
> > is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> > perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure
> > to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and
> > it softens what is happening in their minds.
>
> It's not good and it's not right, and I certainly wish it never had to
> happen. But death by lethal injection is more *humane* than death on
> the streets, death by prolonged disease, death by dog or other
> predator, being hit by cars, or shot or maimed by a human. It is even
> preferrable to prolonged life in a cage. No, it isn't euthanasia, in
> the proper meaning of the word, but it is better than the
> alternatives.
>
> -L.
>
> That should read the possibility of death on the streets etc.

Cats on the streets die sooner or later. Most of them sooner.

-L.

[Rona Yuthasastrakosol]

"-L." > wrote in message
m...

>
> Cats on the streets die sooner or later. Most of them sooner.
>
> -L.

Last I heard, cats in homes die sooner or later, too. Come to think of it,
humans do, too :-)!

rona

--
***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the inconvenience!***

[Kalyahna]

"Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
. ..
> I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in
> animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that
> is SICK.

It's still ending their life before the natural bodily functions would have
stopped on their own. It's killing, either way. The point is the prevention
of further suffering, and this DOES include aggressive animals that would
otherwise sit in a kennel.

What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure
> to spay and neuter their parents.

Yes, a large part of it has to do with the lack of spaying and neutering.
But damned near as much of it has to do with irresponsible people who dump
their pets on overcrowded shelters for trivial reasons (moving, new baby,
too big, no time, etc).

A lot of shelters apparently have a reputation for euthanizing strays as
soon as their legal holding period is over. NOT every shelter does this.

> The general public sees 'euthanized' and
> it softens what is happening in their minds.
>
> I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was due to
be
> euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due to be
> KILLED.

And continue to let people think that killing animals is the sole purpose of
shelters and humane societies. One of my coworkers was out a month or so
ago, and someone struck up a conversation with her, asking what she did for
a living. When she replied that she worked for the humane society, he asked,
"Oh, so you kill animals for a living?" THAT --IS-- the general attitude of
the public.

By the way, not every shelter still uses the time-limit criteria for
euthanasia.

On a more personal note (which explains why this subject is so intensely
irritating), as a certified euthanasia tech, I helped with my first euth
today. Four of them, actually. A pit who had attacked two cats, an ancient
husky with severe handling issues, an absolutely petrified pit, and a
chow/gsd mix that leaned on ME when he got woozy. See, I'd played ball with
him in the play-yards on several occasions. I liked that dog a great deal,
despite his issues. But he HAD those issues, and we cannot put a dog up for
adoption that will bite if someone reaches toward his food dish, or
distrusts men completely and barely trusts women. And he was euthanized. Not
killed. You know why there's that difference in wording for the people who
actually work in this field, Joe? Because frankly, if we look at it as
killing, slaughtering, whatever you'd like to call it, it would be
impossible for us to do. But if we call it euthanasia, we remember that we
put them to sleep, end their suffering, and prevent injury to other animals
and other people. We take on that emotional burden and the extra heartbreak
that already fills a very emotionally difficult line of work. YOU try to
settle it in your mind when a terrified dog trusts you in his last moments
with knowing that this dog won't injure anyone, and he won't have to sit in
a kennel for another day, just waiting on someone else to do it. YOU try to
be grateful that at least in his last moments, someone was with him who
cared and cried for him.

And if this was all about animal control facilities that don't adopt out?
Tell your presenter to cough up the money to build a shelter in that area,
then. And pay the staff that takes care of the animals, or the vets that
perform the spays and neuters. Because there's no goddamned room in any
existing shelter for those 60,000 kittens and puppies of which you spoke.
Ask him how many foster animals he's housed in the last six months. It's
very easy to preach, much more difficult to practice.

Now I'm done ranting, because I've had a long day. It's time to finish a
book and be comforted by my cats.

~Kal.

[Luvskats00]

"Rona Yuthasastrakosol"
joins the group who will argue on any point..whether it makes sense or not, by
saying:

"-L." > wrote in message
> Cats on the streets die sooner or >later. Most of them sooner.

>>Last I heard, cats in homes die >>sooner or later, too. Come to >>think of
it, humans do, too :-)!
>rona

Oh....cats who are inside, vaccinated, taken to the vet on a regular basis,
given food & water regularly, given love and attention regularly don't usually
live longer than their counterparts who live outside, having to deal with: bad
weather, cars (traffic signals, heavy traffic, speeding cars, walk/don't walk
signs), predators (dogs, wild animals, cruel humans) and poisons
(anti-freeze/coolant, rat poison & other toxic substances)?

Want to keep your cat healthier, longer? Keep her/him inside.

[MaryL]

"Kalyahna" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs)
in
> > animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal
that
> > is SICK.
>
>
> A lot of shelters apparently have a reputation for euthanizing strays as
> soon as their legal holding period is over. NOT every shelter does this.
>
>
Yes, this is true. I saw Duffy's picture and description on Petfinders, and
it was clear that the picture had been there for some time. The description
also said that animals were kept at that shelter for 14 days before being
euthanized. I was fairly sure that it was too late, but I called anyway.
Duffy was still alive! He had been at the shelter for 3 months, and shelter
staff were doing everything possible to keep him (literally, to "shelter"
him) until a home could be found. That turned out to be one of the best
days of my life because I was able to adopt Duffy (and, I hope, one of the
best days of *his* life). That animal shelter is going to receive a
donation from me at Christmas in Duffy's honor.
>
>
>
> By the way, not every shelter still uses the time-limit criteria for
> euthanasia.
>
> On a more personal note (which explains why this subject is so intensely
> irritating), as a certified euthanasia tech, I helped with my first euth
> today.
>
But he HAD those issues, and we cannot put a dog up for
> adoption that will bite if someone reaches toward his food dish, or
> distrusts men completely and barely trusts women. And he was euthanized.
Not
> killed. You know why there's that difference in wording for the people who
> actually work in this field, Joe? Because frankly, if we look at it as
> killing, slaughtering, whatever you'd like to call it, it would be
> impossible for us to do. But if we call it euthanasia, we remember that we
> put them to sleep, end their suffering, and prevent injury to other
animals
> and other people. We take on that emotional burden and the extra
heartbreak
> that already fills a very emotionally difficult line of work.
>
>
This is an excellent point. I once did inspections of our local animal
shelter for the Humane Society, and I witnessed the process you just
described. I was very impressed with the love and care I saw there. It was
clearly painful to the staff when animals were euthanized, but the
alternative would have been even worse.
>
>
> ~Kal.
>
>

[Phil P.]

"Meghan Noecker" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:00:10 -0500, "Phil P." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Maybe if everyone used the correct terms that describes exactly what it
is,
> >more people would be outraged and sickened enough to force legislation to
> >eliminate it -- like mandatory neuter before adoption or sale (health
> >permitting) and subsidize vets or give them a tax deduction for neutering
all
> >animals in their care regardless of the owners' consent or ability to
pay.
> >
> It would be great to get help with vet costs for altering pets, but no
> vet would ever go along with mandatory altering without owners'
> consent.

If mandatory neutering was the law, vets would have no choice.... (health
permitting).

If they altered a champion dog that was part of a breeding
> program, there would be a major lawsuit.


Vets would be protected by the law.... Btw, breeders are not very high on my
list of priorities.... In fact, they're not even on it....

Phil

[Kalyahna]

"Phil P." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Meghan Noecker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It would be great to get help with vet costs for altering pets, but no
> > vet would ever go along with mandatory altering without owners'
> > consent.

There are low income assistance programs available at some shelters, and
we've had some success in getting landlords to require spay/neuter instead
of declaw on resident cats.

Btw, I think most (if not all) large shelters DO alter before an animal is
made available for adoption, or at the very least before they go home. I
know a few middle-of-nowhere shelters that do this as well, even though the
animals have to be transported an hour each way to get the surgery done.
We're lucky enough to have a fantastic vet school in town, and some of the
students come in and even spay and neuter rats for us, now and then.

[Sharon Talbert]

You go, girl! I am glad you are one of those in the trenches of our
public shelters. It's a tough tough job and certainly a thankless one.

I look forward to more postings from you.

Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus Cats
www.campuscats.org

[Phil P.]

"Kalyahna" > wrote in message
...
> "Phil P." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Meghan Noecker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > It would be great to get help with vet costs for altering pets, but no
> > > vet would ever go along with mandatory altering without owners'
> > > consent.
>
> There are low income assistance programs available at some shelters, and
> we've had some success in getting landlords to require spay/neuter instead
> of declaw on resident cats.

Before we finalize an adoption to renters, we check with the landlord to
make sure pets are allowed and if there are any conditions. We won't
approve an adoption if the cat must be declawed.

I've sent my declaw brochure to a few landlords who allowed only declawed
and neutered cats... After reading the brochure, a few have changed their
policies

http://maxshouse.com/facts_about_declawing.htm


http://maxshouse.com/Declaw_Brochure-2.pdf

Print the fronts (page 1), tumble the paper and print the backs. Trim 1/4
in. off the long ends (landscape) - Its a triple-fold brochure that fits
into #10 envelopes and plastic (credit card) application holders.



>
> Btw, I think most (if not all) large shelters DO alter before an animal is
> made available for adoption, or at the very least before they go home.

With early-age neutering becoming more popular with vets, kittens can now be
neutered by the time they're ready for adoption.

Phil

[M.C. Mullen]

| Btw, I think most (if not all) large shelters DO alter before an animal is
| made available for adoption, or at the very least before they go home. I
| know a few middle-of-nowhere shelters that do this as well, even though
the
| animals have to be transported an hour each way to get the surgery done.
| We're lucky enough to have a fantastic vet school in town, and some of the
| students come in and even spay and neuter rats for us, now and then.
|


When I got our new cat at the shelter I was surprised to learn that the cats
available were injected and wormed, yes, but only the males were neutered.
Females and males were the same price though. Strange isn't it?


Carola

[lakinapook]

I know the non profit no kill shelters will spay or neuter the animal
before adoption if possible, if not, then you can bring the animal in
at a later time and have them altered for no additional adoption fee.
I believe that our local Humane Society has the same policy. A friend
of mine adopted from there and brought her cat back to be spayed.


"M.C. Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> | Btw, I think most (if not all) large shelters DO alter before an animal is
> | made available for adoption, or at the very least before they go home. I
> | know a few middle-of-nowhere shelters that do this as well, even though
> the
> | animals have to be transported an hour each way to get the surgery done.
> | We're lucky enough to have a fantastic vet school in town, and some of the
> | students come in and even spay and neuter rats for us, now and then.
> |
>
>
> When I got our new cat at the shelter I was surprised to learn that the cats
> available were injected and wormed, yes, but only the males were neutered.
> Females and males were the same price though. Strange isn't it?
>
>
> Carola

[Joe Pitt]

The SPCA in my area, Central Florida, stopped doing that. They found that
although there was no additional cost they animals weren't being altered.
Then people brought in the kittens (and puppies) from the animal they were
supposed to get altered. Now EVERYTHING is altered before going out the
door. You pick out your new friend and come back in a day or two to pick
them up.

--
Joe
http://www.jwpitt.com/cats.htm
Cat Rescue http://www.animalrescuefoundation.com
God created the cat so man could have the pleasure of petting the tiger


"lakinapook" > wrote in message
om...
> I know the non profit no kill shelters will spay or neuter the animal
> before adoption if possible, if not, then you can bring the animal in
> at a later time and have them altered for no additional adoption fee.
> I believe that our local Humane Society has the same policy. A friend
> of mine adopted from there and brought her cat back to be spayed.
>
>
> "M.C. Mullen" > wrote in message
>...
> > | Btw, I think most (if not all) large shelters DO alter before an
animal is
> > | made available for adoption, or at the very least before they go home.
I
> > | know a few middle-of-nowhere shelters that do this as well, even
though
> > the
> > | animals have to be transported an hour each way to get the surgery
done.
> > | We're lucky enough to have a fantastic vet school in town, and some of
the
> > | students come in and even spay and neuter rats for us, now and then.
> > |
> >
> >
> > When I got our new cat at the shelter I was surprised to learn that the
cats
> > available were injected and wormed, yes, but only the males were
neutered.
> > Females and males were the same price though. Strange isn't it?
> >
> >
> > Carola
>

[dkar]

I couldn't agree more, Phil. Society likes to come up with words to hide
what they don't want to think about.

....like "pro choice" instead of "killing".






"Phil P." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs)
in
> > animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal
that
> > is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> > perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the
failure
> > to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized'
and
> > it softens what is happening in their minds.
> >
> > I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was due to
> be
> > euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due to be
> > KILLED.
> >
> > It may seem a small thing, but when you talk to people it may help their
> > awareness of the problem.
>
> Maybe if everyone used the correct terms that describes exactly what it
is,
> more people would be outraged and sickened enough to force legislation to
> eliminate it -- like mandatory neuter before adoption or sale (health
> permiting) and subsidize vets or give them a tax deduction for neutering
all
> animals in their care regardless of the owners' consent or ability to pay.
>
> I use the terms "excecute", "put to death", "slaughter"... because they
> stick in peoples' throats and are much harder to swallow than "put to
sleep"
> or euthanize" or "put down".
>
>
>

[Sharon Talbert]

Same with the City of Seattle shelter. They gave up the "prepaid" spay a
couple of decades ago and moved to "early" sterilization, with kittens and
puppies done by 8 weeks. (Younger animals are fostered until they are
adoption age.)

Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus Cats

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Joe Pitt wrote:

> The SPCA in my area, Central Florida, stopped doing that. They found that
> although there was no additional cost they animals weren't being altered.
> Then people brought in the kittens (and puppies) from the animal they were
> supposed to get altered. Now EVERYTHING is altered before going out the
> door. You pick out your new friend and come back in a day or two to pick
> them up.
>
> --
> Joe
> http://www.jwpitt.com/cats.htm
> Cat Rescue http://www.animalrescuefoundation.com
> God created the cat so man could have the pleasure of petting the tiger
>
>
> "lakinapook" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I know the non profit no kill shelters will spay or neuter the animal
> > before adoption if possible, if not, then you can bring the animal in
> > at a later time and have them altered for no additional adoption fee.
> > I believe that our local Humane Society has the same policy. A friend
> > of mine adopted from there and brought her cat back to be spayed.
> >
> >
> > "M.C. Mullen" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > | Btw, I think most (if not all) large shelters DO alter before an
> animal is
> > > | made available for adoption, or at the very least before they go home.
> I
> > > | know a few middle-of-nowhere shelters that do this as well, even
> though
> > > the
> > > | animals have to be transported an hour each way to get the surgery
> done.
> > > | We're lucky enough to have a fantastic vet school in town, and some of
> the
> > > | students come in and even spay and neuter rats for us, now and then.
> > > |
> > >
> > >
> > > When I got our new cat at the shelter I was surprised to learn that the
> cats
> > > available were injected and wormed, yes, but only the males were
> neutered.
> > > Females and males were the same price though. Strange isn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > > Carola
> >
>
>
>

[Ray Ban]

"Phil P." > wrote in message >...
> "Joe Pitt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in
> > animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that
> > is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING
> > perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure
> > to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and
> > it softens what is happening in their minds.
> >
> > I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was due to
> be
> > euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due to be
> > KILLED.
> >
> > It may seem a small thing, but when you talk to people it may help their
> > awareness of the problem.
>
> Maybe if everyone used the correct terms that describes exactly what it is,
> more people would be outraged and sickened enough to force legislation to
> eliminate it -- like mandatory neuter before adoption or sale (health
> permiting) and subsidize vets or give them a tax deduction for neutering all
> animals in their care regardless of the owners' consent or ability to pay.

If you talk about tax deduction, that means either cut money from some
other program to pay for this proposed program or increase taxes. That
would be fine if you can only increase taxes for those who really
care. My suggestion is to establish a fund or charity. Then those who
can't stand killing of cats can give to that charity. It would be nice
also if said charity is one of the charities listed on tax forms.

[Ray Ban]

"Kalyahna" > wrote in message >...
>
> Yes, a large part of it has to do with the lack of spaying and neutering.
> But damned near as much of it has to do with irresponsible people who dump
> their pets on overcrowded shelters for trivial reasons (moving, new baby,
> too big, no time, etc).

I disagree that having a new baby is a trivial thing. For cat lover
zealots here who don't have human children, do you treat having a new
kitty a trivial thing?

[Cheryl]

Ray Ban wrote in om on 19
Dec 2003:

> My suggestion is to establish a fund or charity. Then those who
> can't stand killing of cats can give to that charity. It would be nice
> also if said charity is one of the charities listed on tax forms.
>
>

Many animal welfare charities are tax deductable. HS and most
local SPCA donations are. There is a huge one, Petsmart Charities. They
do amazing things for rescue groups. Grants, etc. Whenever you see the
fundraiser at the local Petsmart store asking for a couple of dollars, this
is where most of it goes to. :) From my research on them, they are
especially interested spay/neuter programs. When I go to stock up on the
stuff I can only get at Petsmart, I add a few dollars to my total bill for
their charities. Spay/neuter programs are directly related to how many
cats are killed by animal control programs.

--
Cheryl

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I
can do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do."
- Helen Keller

[Cheryl]

Cheryl wrote in on 19 Dec 2003:

> Spay/neuter programs are directly related to how many
> cats are killed by animal control programs.
>

Oh, and as an afterthought. Grants from charities such as Petsmart
Charities and others should be praised for their part in low cost
spay/neuter events hosted by local SPCA and other rescue groups. Donations
directly to them go a long way, but grants from these companies literally
pay the bills. Want to know who the other biggies are? Google "animal
welfare grant". Add "spay neuter" for more.

--
Cheryl

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I
can do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do."
- Helen Keller

[Tracy]

>
> I disagree that having a new baby is a trivial thing. For cat lover
> zealots here who don't have human children, do you treat having a new
> kitty a trivial thing?

I don't think people (most people anyway) are saying that having a new
baby is a trivial thing. What they are saying is that using that as an
excuse to abandon their responsbility to a cat, especially an older
one that will gave extreme difficulty finding a new home, is lame. It
is quite possible, as millions of families will attest, to have both a
cat and a child simmultaneously. It just takes a little bit of thought
about how to accomodate everyone's needs. But a lot of people just
don't want to make that little bit of effort. That is thoughtless.
Especially when, as is often true, the life or death of a living being
is concerned.

[Ray Ban]

(Tracy) wrote in message >...
> >
> > I disagree that having a new baby is a trivial thing. For cat lover
> > zealots here who don't have human children, do you treat having a new
> > kitty a trivial thing?
>
> I don't think people (most people anyway) are saying that having a new
> baby is a trivial thing. What they are saying is that using that as an
> excuse to abandon their responsbility to a cat, especially an older
> one that will gave extreme difficulty finding a new home, is lame. It
> is quite possible, as millions of families will attest, to have both a
> cat and a child simmultaneously. It just takes a little bit of thought
> about how to accomodate everyone's needs. But a lot of people just
> don't want to make that little bit of effort. That is thoughtless.
> Especially when, as is often true, the life or death of a living being
> is concerned.

Well, it's not that simple. Suppose I have a cat. Now a baby arrives.
I can't afford to feed and care for both. Who should go? In some
cases, it takes much more than just a little bit of thought and a
little bit of effort. Of course, zealots will make you believe that
everytime a cat is given up over a baby, that it could just have taken
a little bit of this and a little bit of that to keep the cat. If the
cat is killed/murdered in the shelter, then so be it. Thousands,
perhaps millions of animals are killed everyday anyway, cats included.
Get real.

[Agua Girl]

"Ray Ban" > wrote in message
om...
> (Tracy) wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > > I disagree that having a new baby is a trivial thing. For cat lover
> > > zealots here who don't have human children, do you treat having a new
> > > kitty a trivial thing?
> >
> > I don't think people (most people anyway) are saying that having a new
> > baby is a trivial thing. What they are saying is that using that as an
> > excuse to abandon their responsbility to a cat, especially an older
> > one that will gave extreme difficulty finding a new home, is lame. It
> > is quite possible, as millions of families will attest, to have both a
> > cat and a child simmultaneously. It just takes a little bit of thought
> > about how to accomodate everyone's needs. But a lot of people just
> > don't want to make that little bit of effort. That is thoughtless.
> > Especially when, as is often true, the life or death of a living being
> > is concerned.
>
> Well, it's not that simple. Suppose I have a cat. Now a baby arrives.
> I can't afford to feed and care for both. Who should go? In some
> cases, it takes much more than just a little bit of thought and a
> little bit of effort. Of course, zealots will make you believe that
> everytime a cat is given up over a baby, that it could just have taken
> a little bit of this and a little bit of that to keep the cat. If the
> cat is killed/murdered in the shelter, then so be it. Thousands,
> perhaps millions of animals are killed everyday anyway, cats included.
> Get real.

Reality bites :-) Just because something is "real" doesn't make it ideal...
and certainly doesn't mean it can't change. Yes, thousands of animals
are killed every day ...unnecessarily. As a civilized people there are
things we can do to change that. We can spay and neuter our pets
unless we are conscientious breeders. We can honor our commitments
to our pets by providing a home for the life of the animal. And if for
some reason we can not live up to that commitment we can take it upon
ourselves to find it another loving home.
I know people live on the edge but I shudder to think about someone
who would have to choose between feeding a new baby and feeding
a cat. Sounds like someone who isn't going to be able to afford to take
care of the child properly. Cats are not expensive to feed (unless you have
9 ) BTW...do you distinguish between a "zealot" and an animal lover?
I wouldn't swerve into a park bench full of kids to avoid hitting a cat..but
I would mourn hitting that cat as if it were a living being...ohh
wait...that's
right, it is. There is nothing wrong in caring for life even if that life
is just
a cats.

AG

[Tracy]

> >
> > Well, it's not that simple. Suppose I have a cat. Now a baby arrives.
> > I can't afford to feed and care for both.

Wow. Average cost of feeding one cat is maybe $15 a week. You telling
me that you're gonna bring a human life into this world and try to
take care of it for 18 years when you can't spare bus fare for a week?

> In some cases, it takes much more than just a little bit of thought and a
> little bit of effort.

It takes a little bit of thought and a little bit of effort to take
care of both human children and cats. You shouldn't do either if
you're not going to put any thought or effort into it.

[Ray Ban]

"Agua Girl" > wrote in message >...
> "Ray Ban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Tracy) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >
> > > > I disagree that having a new baby is a trivial thing. For cat lover
> > > > zealots here who don't have human children, do you treat having a new
> > > > kitty a trivial thing?
> > >
> > > I don't think people (most people anyway) are saying that having a new
> > > baby is a trivial thing. What they are saying is that using that as an
> > > excuse to abandon their responsbility to a cat, especially an older
> > > one that will gave extreme difficulty finding a new home, is lame. It
> > > is quite possible, as millions of families will attest, to have both a
> > > cat and a child simmultaneously. It just takes a little bit of thought
> > > about how to accomodate everyone's needs. But a lot of people just
> > > don't want to make that little bit of effort. That is thoughtless.
> > > Especially when, as is often true, the life or death of a living being
> > > is concerned.
> >
> > Well, it's not that simple. Suppose I have a cat. Now a baby arrives.
> > I can't afford to feed and care for both. Who should go? In some
> > cases, it takes much more than just a little bit of thought and a
> > little bit of effort. Of course, zealots will make you believe that
> > everytime a cat is given up over a baby, that it could just have taken
> > a little bit of this and a little bit of that to keep the cat. If the
> > cat is killed/murdered in the shelter, then so be it. Thousands,
> > perhaps millions of animals are killed everyday anyway, cats included.
> > Get real.
>
> Reality bites :-) Just because something is "real" doesn't make it ideal...
> and certainly doesn't mean it can't change. Yes, thousands of animals
> are killed every day ...unnecessarily. As a civilized people there are
> things we can do to change that. We can spay and neuter our pets
> unless we are conscientious breeders. We can honor our commitments
> to our pets by providing a home for the life of the animal. And if for
> some reason we can not live up to that commitment we can take it upon
> ourselves to find it another loving home.
> I know people live on the edge but I shudder to think about someone
> who would have to choose between feeding a new baby and feeding
> a cat. Sounds like someone who isn't going to be able to afford to take
> care of the child properly. Cats are not expensive to feed (unless you have
> 9 ) BTW...do you distinguish between a "zealot" and an animal lover?
> I wouldn't swerve into a park bench full of kids to avoid hitting a cat..but
> I would mourn hitting that cat as if it were a living being...ohh
> wait...that's
> right, it is. There is nothing wrong in caring for life even if that life
> is just
> a cats.
>
> AG

Everything is cheap or expensive, depending on your situation. Let's
see: a can of high quality cat food is about 80-90 cents where I live.
Twice a day that's $1.70 on the average -- around $50/month. Just for
food. Treats are extra. Some cats have ongoing problems so they need
prescriptions. Toys. Vet visits. It could add up. You could easily
spend $100/month average on a single cat. I'm sure a lot of people
spend more than that on their cats. For some people that's not cheap.
And you can minimize expenses by feeding your cat junk food (e.g.,
Friskies, 9-Lives), cut down on treats and vet visits, cut down on
medicine and just let it suffer a bit some days (anyway, they're good
at hiding pain).

Just deal with it. We don't live in an ideal world. We will alays
murder cats, dogs, cows, pigs, lamb, people, unborn human children
everyday. We will never be able to have all the money to pay vets so
they can alter each and every cat that have to be altered. In the end,
it's all about money. You can yap about it all day long if you want,
but without money, nothing is going to get done.

[Tracy]

> Everything is cheap or expensive, depending on your situation. Let's
> see: a can of high quality cat food is about 80-90 cents where I live.
> Twice a day that's $1.70 on the average -- around $50/month. Just for
> food. Treats are extra. Some cats have ongoing problems so they need
> prescriptions. Toys. Vet visits. It could add up. You could easily
> spend $100/month average on a single cat. I'm sure a lot of people
> spend more than that on their cats. For some people that's not cheap.
> And you can minimize expenses by feeding your cat junk food (e.g.,
> Friskies, 9-Lives), cut down on treats and vet visits, cut down on
> medicine and just let it suffer a bit some days (anyway, they're good
> at hiding pain).
>

Let's see ... indeed. My take on it: If it's a question of abandoning
an older cat to a kill-shelter situation (and I volunteer at a no-kill
and frankly, if a cat is over a year and a half old, it generally will
take a month or more to find an adoptive home - some are there for
several months - it's only the kittens that are easily placed), then I
could care less if someone feeds it Friskies or 9-lives for it's
entire existence. Kids grow up on crap too - in poor families. Love is
more important than organic produce.

Treats? Sure it's nice, but it isn't necessary for existence.

Toys? After buying all sorts of contraptions, I now understand that my
two cats far prefer milk rings to anything else - and they're FREE.
And a wood shelf bolted by a window with an old sweater on it IS a cat
perch.

Vet visits? Low-cost vet clinics are very present in most communities
and most cats really don't require anything more than a few booster
shots from time to time. I suppose some cats do develop complicated
medical situations, but not most and not all of the time.

Of course, it's nice to coddle both cats and children if you can
afford to do it, but if you can't, love and caring and emotional
generosity go a long way.

[Ray Ban]

(Tracy) wrote in message >...
> > Everything is cheap or expensive, depending on your situation. Let's
> > see: a can of high quality cat food is about 80-90 cents where I live.
> > Twice a day that's $1.70 on the average -- around $50/month. Just for
> > food. Treats are extra. Some cats have ongoing problems so they need
> > prescriptions. Toys. Vet visits. It could add up. You could easily
> > spend $100/month average on a single cat. I'm sure a lot of people
> > spend more than that on their cats. For some people that's not cheap.
> > And you can minimize expenses by feeding your cat junk food (e.g.,
> > Friskies, 9-Lives), cut down on treats and vet visits, cut down on
> > medicine and just let it suffer a bit some days (anyway, they're good
> > at hiding pain).
> >
>
> Let's see ... indeed. My take on it: If it's a question of abandoning
> an older cat to a kill-shelter situation (and I volunteer at a no-kill
> and frankly, if a cat is over a year and a half old, it generally will
> take a month or more to find an adoptive home - some are there for
> several months - it's only the kittens that are easily placed), then I
> could care less if someone feeds it Friskies or 9-lives for it's
> entire existence. Kids grow up on crap too - in poor families. Love is
> more important than organic produce.
>
> Treats? Sure it's nice, but it isn't necessary for existence.
>
> Toys? After buying all sorts of contraptions, I now understand that my
> two cats far prefer milk rings to anything else - and they're FREE.
> And a wood shelf bolted by a window with an old sweater on it IS a cat
> perch.
>
> Vet visits? Low-cost vet clinics are very present in most communities
> and most cats really don't require anything more than a few booster
> shots from time to time. I suppose some cats do develop complicated
> medical situations, but not most and not all of the time.
>
> Of course, it's nice to coddle both cats and children if you can
> afford to do it, but if you can't, love and caring and emotional
> generosity go a long way.

So your take on it is that it's impossible for anyone not to be able
to afford raising children and cats. We'll just have to disagree. I
guess you'd prefer to feed both your children and cats crap. While I
would prefer to feed my children, and if possible my cats, high
quality food. Yes, fresh vegetables and fruits are more expensive than
a happy meal, but I would want my children to haev fresh fruit and
vegetables. I also would want to be able to pay for medical insurance
should my children need medical care. Anyway, we'll just have to
disagree at this point.

[M.C. Mullen]

| Everything is cheap or expensive, depending on your situation. Let's
| see: a can of high quality cat food is about 80-90 cents where I live.
| Twice a day that's $1.70 on the average -- around $50/month. Just for
| food. Treats are extra. Some cats have ongoing problems so they need
| prescriptions. Toys. Vet visits. It could add up. You could easily
| spend $100/month average on a single cat.


I don't even spend that in a year and the cat is being looked after well...
I mix premium food and good quality supermarket food half and half.
The cat cushion I sewed myself from leftover material.
With 8$ a month I can even buy some treats.
(Vet visits are excluded.)

Carola

[Tracy]

> I guess you'd prefer to feed both your children and cats crap. While I
> would prefer to feed my children, and if possible my cats, high
> quality food. Yes, fresh vegetables and fruits are more expensive than
> a happy meal, but I would want my children to haev fresh fruit and
> vegetables. I also would want to be able to pay for medical insurance
> should my children need medical care. Anyway, we'll just have to
> disagree at this point.

Are you being accidentally obtuse or doing this on purpose?

Of course, I don't prefer to feed my two cats junk (and I don't). But
what is this "death before Friskies" cry? You really think that if
someone is so unfortunate as to genuinely need the $20/month
difference between good and bad food for a while, they should think,
"oh no, what horror - much better to tear the cat from it's home, put
it through the terror and trauma of being locked in a cage, and then a
trip to the gas chamber - rather than having one morsel of that junk
hit it's precious lips".

At the point that thought goes through one's head, it is probably best
to see a psychiatrist.

And not that it matters much, but here where I live, fresh fruits and
vegetables from a Farmer's Market are much cheaper than Happy Meals
and health insurance is available to all young children from the state
at very low-cost throught the Healthy Families Program.

[Ray Ban]

"M.C. Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> | Everything is cheap or expensive, depending on your situation. Let's
> | see: a can of high quality cat food is about 80-90 cents where I live.
> | Twice a day that's $1.70 on the average -- around $50/month. Just for
> | food. Treats are extra. Some cats have ongoing problems so they need
> | prescriptions. Toys. Vet visits. It could add up. You could easily
> | spend $100/month average on a single cat.
>
>
> I don't even spend that in a year and the cat is being looked after well...
> I mix premium food and good quality supermarket food half and half.
> The cat cushion I sewed myself from leftover material.
> With 8$ a month I can even buy some treats.
> (Vet visits are excluded.)

You don't spend $100 a year to care for your cat? I live in the US and
there's no way you can spend less. Consider yourself lucky.

[Ray Ban]

(Tracy) wrote in message >...
> > I guess you'd prefer to feed both your children and cats crap. While I
> > would prefer to feed my children, and if possible my cats, high
> > quality food. Yes, fresh vegetables and fruits are more expensive than
> > a happy meal, but I would want my children to haev fresh fruit and
> > vegetables. I also would want to be able to pay for medical insurance
> > should my children need medical care. Anyway, we'll just have to
> > disagree at this point.
>
> Are you being accidentally obtuse or doing this on purpose?
>
> Of course, I don't prefer to feed my two cats junk (and I don't). But
> what is this "death before Friskies" cry? You really think that if
> someone is so unfortunate as to genuinely need the $20/month
> difference between good and bad food for a while, they should think,
> "oh no, what horror - much better to tear the cat from it's home, put
> it through the terror and trauma of being locked in a cage, and then a
> trip to the gas chamber - rather than having one morsel of that junk
> hit it's precious lips".

Actually, the difference in crap food (.30/can) and premium food
(.90/can) is about $40/month FOR EACH CAT. Yes, better they go to
other homes where they can get good food rather than poison/crap food.
As Sting said, if you love somebody, set them free. Don't try to keep
them for your own selfish reasons at the expense of their health.

>
> At the point that thought goes through one's head, it is probably best
> to see a psychiatrist.
>
> And not that it matters much, but here where I live, fresh fruits and
> vegetables from a Farmer's Market are much cheaper than Happy Meals
> and health insurance is available to all young children from the state
> at very low-cost throught the Healthy Families Program.

There are no cheap farmer's market and cheap insurance where I live.
Please do us a favor and tell us where you live.

[M.C. Mullen]

| > Of course, I don't prefer to feed my two cats junk (and I don't). But
| > what is this "death before Friskies" cry? You really think that if
| > someone is so unfortunate as to genuinely need the $20/month
| > difference between good and bad food for a while, they should think,
| > "oh no, what horror - much better to tear the cat from it's home, put
| > it through the terror and trauma of being locked in a cage, and then a
| > trip to the gas chamber - rather than having one morsel of that junk
| > hit it's precious lips".
|
| Actually, the difference in crap food (.30/can) and premium food
| (.90/can) is about $40/month FOR EACH CAT. Yes, better they go to
| other homes where they can get good food rather than poison/crap food.
| As Sting said, if you love somebody, set them free. Don't try to keep
| them for your own selfish reasons at the expense of their health.


My vet says - and he is a capacity around here - that as far as wet food is
concerned it doesn't matter what you feed. I myself have noticed that a lot
of tinned cat food contains sugar and I try and avoid that. (Of course cat
likes the sugary ones better...)
But with dry food there *is* a difference, and it matters what we feed the
pets.


Carola

[[email protected]]

In rec.pets.cats.health+behav Ray Ban > wrote:
> Well, it's not that simple. Suppose I have a cat. Now a baby arrives.
> I can't afford to feed and care for both. Who should go? In some
> cases, it takes much more than just a little bit of thought and a

If you were that tight on money, why the hell did you have a baby in the
first place?!!!!! Honestly... if having a baby makes it so you can't even
afford to feed the cat, you really don't have enough money to have the
baby anyways beccause you don't have enough money for even the slightest
thing to go wrong. Babies (and health problems and whatnot) are a lot more
expensive than a cat.

I'd say if you were int hat position, you werne't a responsible person and
I feel sorry for both baby and cat that they were in such an irresponsible
person's care that they couldn't wait until they truly could afford the
baby.

Alice

--
The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't
worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee.

[[email protected]]

In rec.pets.cats.health+behav Ray Ban > wrote:
> Everything is cheap or expensive, depending on your situation. Let's
> see: a can of high quality cat food is about 80-90 cents where I live.
> Twice a day that's $1.70 on the average -- around $50/month. Just for

Guess what? I feed my cat's Nutro dry food. Not cheapo food. It costs me
at most 30 dollars for *2* months.

Seriously, even with the costs you are saying, if the baby makes your
money that tight, you cannot afford the baby. 50 dollars can easily be
eaten up if your baby ends up having even a common health problem. Shoot,
it probably can easily be taken up just by the added health insurance (if
you can even afford it... most are more expensive for one person than 50
dollars a month) the baby will give you.

once again, I state that if you are in the position you hypothosize, you
should have had some forethought and used birth control!

Alice

--
The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't
worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee.

[[email protected]]

In rec.pets.cats.health+behav wrote:
>
> Guess what? I feed my cat's Nutro dry food. Not cheapo food. It costs me

er cats, not cat's (that is a quote for two of them).

Aliec

--
The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't
worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee.

[Ray Ban]

wrote in message >...
> In rec.pets.cats.health+behav Ray Ban > wrote:
> > Well, it's not that simple. Suppose I have a cat. Now a baby arrives.
> > I can't afford to feed and care for both. Who should go? In some
> > cases, it takes much more than just a little bit of thought and a
>
> If you were that tight on money, why the hell did you have a baby in the
> first place?!!!!! Honestly... if having a baby makes it so you can't even
> afford to feed the cat, you really don't have enough money to have the
> baby anyways beccause you don't have enough money for even the slightest
> thing to go wrong. Babies (and health problems and whatnot) are a lot more
> expensive than a cat.
>
> I'd say if you were int hat position, you werne't a responsible person and
> I feel sorry for both baby and cat that they were in such an irresponsible
> person's care that they couldn't wait until they truly could afford the
> baby.
>
> Alice

Alice, if you followed the thread, I stated clearly that it was a
hypothetical situation.

[Ray Ban]

wrote in message >...
> In rec.pets.cats.health+behav Ray Ban > wrote:
> > Everything is cheap or expensive, depending on your situation. Let's
> > see: a can of high quality cat food is about 80-90 cents where I live.
> > Twice a day that's $1.70 on the average -- around $50/month. Just for
>
> Guess what? I feed my cat's Nutro dry food. Not cheapo food. It costs me
> at most 30 dollars for *2* months.

Right. But you can't get cheap WET premium food.

>
> Seriously, even with the costs you are saying, if the baby makes your
> money that tight, you cannot afford the baby. 50 dollars can easily be
> eaten up if your baby ends up having even a common health problem. Shoot,
> it probably can easily be taken up just by the added health insurance (if
> you can even afford it... most are more expensive for one person than 50
> dollars a month) the baby will give you.

For some people, the arrival of a baby brings about many changes such
as "belt-tightening" in many places, including getting rid of a cat or
cats.

>
> once again, I state that if you are in the position you hypothosize, you
> should have had some forethought and used birth control!
>
> Alice

Why? So I could keep the cat? If the only way I could have a child is
to dump the cat, then so be it.

[Luvskats00]

>Why? So I could keep the cat? If >the only way I could have a child is
>to dump the cat, then so be it.

If money is so tight that one has to make a choice between a cat and being a
parent to a human child, then that person shouldn't have adopted a cat in the
first place. Adopting a pet is a lifetime committment. It's not a thing to do
'til something better comes along. It's not a thing to do 'til a better job and
move to another location (no pets allowed) comes along.

[M.C. Mullen]

| > > see: a can of high quality cat food is about 80-90 cents where I live.
| > > Twice a day that's $1.70 on the average -- around $50/month. Just for
| >
| > Guess what? I feed my cat's Nutro dry food. Not cheapo food. It costs me
| > at most 30 dollars for *2* months.
|
| Right. But you can't get cheap WET premium food.
|
| >
| > Seriously, even with the costs you are saying, if the baby makes your
| > money that tight, you cannot afford the baby. 50 dollars can easily be
| > eaten up if your baby ends up having even a common health problem.
Shoot,
| > it probably can easily be taken up just by the added health insurance
(if
| > you can even afford it... most are more expensive for one person than 50
| > dollars a month) the baby will give you.
|
| For some people, the arrival of a baby brings about many changes such
| as "belt-tightening" in many places, including getting rid of a cat or
| cats.



There must be a spelling mistake - it's: car or cars :-)


Carola

[Linda Terrell]

> Why? So I could keep the cat? If the only way I could have a child is
> to dump the cat, then so be it.

Then why take in an animal and NOT commit to it?
The animal has bvonded with you by now. Has
committed to YOU, but now you think it's fine to
just dump it.

I think that is cruel.

Cats don't need wet food. Feed it Meow mix if you have to.
It'll survive on that until you're financially better off.

LT

[[email protected]]

In rec.pets.cats.health+behav Ray Ban > wrote:
> Right. But you can't get cheap WET premium food.

And if worse comes to worse, you don't have to feed it. And, yes, I know
it's hypothecial situation, but it's a stupid one and I was pointing out
why I'd still have no sympathy for you if you found out that you were
having a baby and that left you no money for a cat.

> For some people, the arrival of a baby brings about many changes such
> as "belt-tightening" in many places, including getting rid of a cat or
> cats.

And they shouldn't have had a baby then! They shoudl have used birth
control until they didn't have to do such tight belt tightening. Sorry,
but that's the truth. Just cuase they were irresponsible (to both cat and
kid) dosen't mean I'm going to sympathize with them.

> Why? So I could keep the cat? If the only way I could have a child is
> to dump the cat, then so be it.

Because as I said, if having the baby meant you had so litlte money you
had to get rid of the cat, then you really couldn't have afforded the baby
anyways! Getting rid of the cat isn't even going to give you enough money
for the health insurance. And forget getting any medical care if you
couldn't afford the health insurance. Even a dr's exam is expensive (90
dollars just for a sick exam at the place near me and for a full checkup,
it can run in the hundreds). I know, I'm without health insurance.

Alice

--
The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't
worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee.

[Ray Ban]

(Luvskats00) wrote in message >...
> >Why? So I could keep the cat? If >the only way I could have a child is
> >to dump the cat, then so be it.
>
> If money is so tight that one has to make a choice between a cat and being a
> parent to a human child, then that person shouldn't have adopted a cat in the
> first place. Adopting a pet is a lifetime committment. It's not a thing to do
> 'til something better comes along. It's not a thing to do 'til a better job and
> move to another location (no pets allowed) comes along.

Obviously, that's not how I and many people feel. We have our own
opinions. It just happens that mine differ with yours. Pets are for
our enjoyment. Why do you have a pet? To make you feel good. Some
people feel good when they perceive that their pet loves them and
depends on them. These same people will spoil their pet to no end so
they can feel good about themselves. If you need your pet to feel good
about yourself, then fine. But don't impose that on me. Bye.

[Ray Ban]

"Linda Terrell" > wrote in message >...
> > Why? So I could keep the cat? If the only way I could have a child is
> > to dump the cat, then so be it.
>
> Then why take in an animal and NOT commit to it?
> The animal has bvonded with you by now. Has
> committed to YOU, but now you think it's fine to
> just dump it.

In my hypothetical situation, the cat came first.

>
> I think that is cruel.

I think not.

>
> Cats don't need wet food. Feed it Meow mix if you have to.
> It'll survive on that until you're financially better off.

I don't want the cat to just survive.

[Ray Ban]

wrote in message >...
> In rec.pets.cats.health+behav Ray Ban > wrote:
> > Right. But you can't get cheap WET premium food.
>
> And if worse comes to worse, you don't have to feed it. And, yes, I know
> it's hypothecial situation, but it's a stupid one and I was pointing out
> why I'd still have no sympathy for you if you found out that you were
> having a baby and that left you no money for a cat.
>
> > For some people, the arrival of a baby brings about many changes such
> > as "belt-tightening" in many places, including getting rid of a cat or
> > cats.
>
> And they shouldn't have had a baby then! They shoudl have used birth
> control until they didn't have to do such tight belt tightening. Sorry,
> but that's the truth. Just cuase they were irresponsible (to both cat and
> kid) dosen't mean I'm going to sympathize with them.
>
> > Why? So I could keep the cat? If the only way I could have a child is
> > to dump the cat, then so be it.
>
> Because as I said, if having the baby meant you had so litlte money you
> had to get rid of the cat, then you really couldn't have afforded the baby
> anyways! Getting rid of the cat isn't even going to give you enough money
> for the health insurance. And forget getting any medical care if you
> couldn't afford the health insurance. Even a dr's exam is expensive (90
> dollars just for a sick exam at the place near me and for a full checkup,
> it can run in the hundreds). I know, I'm without health insurance.
>
> Alice

If the only way to be able to afford having the baby is to get rid of
the cat, then it's perfectly OK to get rid of the cat. That's my
opinion because a cat no matter what is just an animal.

[Barb]

No one should have a baby if they can't afford it. (With their own, not
tax-payer money.) You are quite right. I didn't see the start of this
thread but what I have seen makes me wonder...if you can't afford to keep
your cat because you have a baby, what happens if you have another baby? Do
you get rid of the first baby?

--
Barb
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

[Ray Ban]

"Barb" > wrote in message >...
> No one should have a baby if they can't afford it. (With their own, not
> tax-payer money.) You are quite right. I didn't see the start of this
> thread but what I have seen makes me wonder...if you can't afford to keep
> your cat because you have a baby, what happens if you have another baby? Do
> you get rid of the first baby?

No, you get rid of your spouse :-> I don't know how the best way to
handle this situation because I've never been in this situation. I
suppose you can:
- borrow money from relatives, friends, credit card companies, home
equity loan, etc.
- get a grant from the government -- i.e., get money that other
tax-payers worked for
- etc.

Again, my position is I'd do infinitely more for my child/ren than for
my cat/s.