PDA

View Full Version : Companion for Kitten?


November 3rd 03, 03:50 PM
Hi,


I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).

I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
for her, so I have a few questions:


1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
gender should the kitten be?

2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
it would hurt her to part company with me.


Thanks.

Joe Pitt
November 3rd 03, 05:19 PM
Kittens often do better in pairs. I would suggest a little (neutered) boy.

--
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


> wrote in message
m...
> Hi,
>
>
> I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
> cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).
>
> I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
> are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
> for her, so I have a few questions:
>
>
> 1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
> gender should the kitten be?
>
> 2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
> don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
> it would hurt her to part company with me.
>
>
> Thanks.
>

Joe Pitt
November 3rd 03, 05:19 PM
Kittens often do better in pairs. I would suggest a little (neutered) boy.

--
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


> wrote in message
m...
> Hi,
>
>
> I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
> cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).
>
> I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
> are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
> for her, so I have a few questions:
>
>
> 1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
> gender should the kitten be?
>
> 2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
> don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
> it would hurt her to part company with me.
>
>
> Thanks.
>

Iso
November 3rd 03, 05:52 PM
Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures - unlike the
pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
structure around them. They are unlikely to feel the 'need' for a companion
even though you would wish to have another cat around. Moreover, you cannot
force cats to like each other - some will live with a newcomer easily,
others will never relate, or they may just manage to live alongside each
other in an uneasy truce - you can only try. However, if there is no
competition for food or safe sleeping places (as in most good homes) then
cats will accept each other eventually and some will even seem to form close
bonds with one another. In conclusion, getting another cat may not solve the
problem, nor would getting rid of the cat. Do you think if you keep the cat
for the remainder of its life, your personal life will settle down in the
future, enabling you to have more time to spend at home? If you do, and you
like the idea of having a cat, keep her. If you don't think you are going to
settle down, and don't like the idea of having a cat, then by all means find
her a good home. As you probably already know, the transition the kitten
will have to make into a new home will be easier at a younger age. In my
opinion, it has always been easier to find a kitten a home, rather than a
one to two year old cat. The fact that she is already house broken and an
indoor cat helps. If you do decide to get another kitten, I suggest you find
one at or about the same age as the kitten you already have. That way there
won't be any competition for food or sleeping areas, until they are older
and have already established personal spaces or boundaries in your home.
Regarding the gender of a new cat, that is purely up to you. Many people
like to mix the genders if they have two cats and some do not. If you get a
kitten at or about the same age as the kitten you already have, as they
mature they will hopefully bond and become fond of the others presence
because. If you find another kitten that is a little older and a little
larger, you may be setting yourself up for disaster. As you already know
temperament of cats are unique. Should you decided to mix the gender, and
find a male kitten; make sure you find one at or about the same age and size
as the kitten, you have and neuter him. If you do want to have another
kitten, you should ask around and see what other people have done in your
situation, regarding mixing genders. Maybe they can shed some light on how
their experience with their cat's relationship matured, and problems you may
face in the long run... I hope this helps.

Iso
November 3rd 03, 05:52 PM
Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures - unlike the
pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
structure around them. They are unlikely to feel the 'need' for a companion
even though you would wish to have another cat around. Moreover, you cannot
force cats to like each other - some will live with a newcomer easily,
others will never relate, or they may just manage to live alongside each
other in an uneasy truce - you can only try. However, if there is no
competition for food or safe sleeping places (as in most good homes) then
cats will accept each other eventually and some will even seem to form close
bonds with one another. In conclusion, getting another cat may not solve the
problem, nor would getting rid of the cat. Do you think if you keep the cat
for the remainder of its life, your personal life will settle down in the
future, enabling you to have more time to spend at home? If you do, and you
like the idea of having a cat, keep her. If you don't think you are going to
settle down, and don't like the idea of having a cat, then by all means find
her a good home. As you probably already know, the transition the kitten
will have to make into a new home will be easier at a younger age. In my
opinion, it has always been easier to find a kitten a home, rather than a
one to two year old cat. The fact that she is already house broken and an
indoor cat helps. If you do decide to get another kitten, I suggest you find
one at or about the same age as the kitten you already have. That way there
won't be any competition for food or sleeping areas, until they are older
and have already established personal spaces or boundaries in your home.
Regarding the gender of a new cat, that is purely up to you. Many people
like to mix the genders if they have two cats and some do not. If you get a
kitten at or about the same age as the kitten you already have, as they
mature they will hopefully bond and become fond of the others presence
because. If you find another kitten that is a little older and a little
larger, you may be setting yourself up for disaster. As you already know
temperament of cats are unique. Should you decided to mix the gender, and
find a male kitten; make sure you find one at or about the same age and size
as the kitten, you have and neuter him. If you do want to have another
kitten, you should ask around and see what other people have done in your
situation, regarding mixing genders. Maybe they can shed some light on how
their experience with their cat's relationship matured, and problems you may
face in the long run... I hope this helps.

Bob Brenchley.
November 3rd 03, 10:56 PM
On 3 Nov 2003 06:50:44 -0800, wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
>cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).

WHAT!!!

How can you have a kitten that is only a month old and yet is already
away from its mother (at least two months ahead of schedule) and
already neutered?
>
>I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
>are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
>for her, so I have a few questions:
>
>
>1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
>gender should the kitten be?
>
>2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
>don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
>it would hurt her to part company with me.
>
>
>Thanks.

To be honest she needs time with humans, if you can't give that then
it would be better for her to have a new home.

--
Bob.

Anything on the ground is a cat toy. Anything not there yet, will be.

Bob Brenchley.
November 3rd 03, 10:56 PM
On 3 Nov 2003 06:50:44 -0800, wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
>cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).

WHAT!!!

How can you have a kitten that is only a month old and yet is already
away from its mother (at least two months ahead of schedule) and
already neutered?
>
>I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
>are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
>for her, so I have a few questions:
>
>
>1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
>gender should the kitten be?
>
>2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
>don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
>it would hurt her to part company with me.
>
>
>Thanks.

To be honest she needs time with humans, if you can't give that then
it would be better for her to have a new home.

--
Bob.

Anything on the ground is a cat toy. Anything not there yet, will be.

Bob Brenchley.
November 3rd 03, 10:57 PM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:

>Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures

Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.

> - unlike the
>pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
>structure around them.

No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
cats.


--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

Bob Brenchley.
November 3rd 03, 10:57 PM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:

>Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures

Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.

> - unlike the
>pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
>structure around them.

No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
cats.


--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

Ted Davis
November 4th 03, 12:58 AM
On 3 Nov 2003 06:50:44 -0800, wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
>cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).
>
>I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
>are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
>for her, so I have a few questions:
>
>
>1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
>gender should the kitten be?
>
>2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
>don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
>it would hurt her to part company with me.

I see that Bob Brenchley is making a nuisance of himself here now. He
probably appears in more killfiles than anyone else in the cat and
legal groups. He is best filtered out; if you can't filter him,
ignore him. *Don't respond to him.* I notice he as added a warning
to his header about quoting him except in direct replies - that is
clearly to discourage the "you said this there and the opposite here -
which is it?" discussions that always follow his appearance.

As for your cat questions. Cats bond more readily with places than
with people, though this certainly does occur. The main effect is
that it is more difficult to successfully rehome a cat that has
established himself. They are also territorial, which can make it
difficult to introduce new cats. None of this applies very much to
kittens - they are easily rehomed and most easily introduced to
another kitten.

While cats are naturally solitary, their natural environment is far
from sterile and includes interactions with all sorts of other
animals: a lone kitten in a house with no other animals and no people
is starved for stimulation. Multiple cats usually get along well
enough that they keep each other stimulated without killing each
other. I strongly recommend at least one more kitten. I have good
results with multiple (neutered) males, but my (spayed) females don't
get along nearly as well with each other, and for that matter some
don't get along with the males, not even their own brothers, as well
as the other males do (but Millie and Snowball get along with
everybody) - a male might be the best bet.

Now I'm going to change the Bob Brenchley filter to global scope.


T.E.D. - e-mail must contain "T.E.D." or my .sig in the body)

Ted Davis
November 4th 03, 12:58 AM
On 3 Nov 2003 06:50:44 -0800, wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
>cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).
>
>I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
>are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
>for her, so I have a few questions:
>
>
>1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
>gender should the kitten be?
>
>2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
>don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
>it would hurt her to part company with me.

I see that Bob Brenchley is making a nuisance of himself here now. He
probably appears in more killfiles than anyone else in the cat and
legal groups. He is best filtered out; if you can't filter him,
ignore him. *Don't respond to him.* I notice he as added a warning
to his header about quoting him except in direct replies - that is
clearly to discourage the "you said this there and the opposite here -
which is it?" discussions that always follow his appearance.

As for your cat questions. Cats bond more readily with places than
with people, though this certainly does occur. The main effect is
that it is more difficult to successfully rehome a cat that has
established himself. They are also territorial, which can make it
difficult to introduce new cats. None of this applies very much to
kittens - they are easily rehomed and most easily introduced to
another kitten.

While cats are naturally solitary, their natural environment is far
from sterile and includes interactions with all sorts of other
animals: a lone kitten in a house with no other animals and no people
is starved for stimulation. Multiple cats usually get along well
enough that they keep each other stimulated without killing each
other. I strongly recommend at least one more kitten. I have good
results with multiple (neutered) males, but my (spayed) females don't
get along nearly as well with each other, and for that matter some
don't get along with the males, not even their own brothers, as well
as the other males do (but Millie and Snowball get along with
everybody) - a male might be the best bet.

Now I'm going to change the Bob Brenchley filter to global scope.


T.E.D. - e-mail must contain "T.E.D." or my .sig in the body)

Judy
November 4th 03, 05:36 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
>
> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
>
> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.

Try telling this to Matilda. Nothing she loves more (apart from her chow)
than to skin another cat. :c)
>
> > - unlike the
> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
> >structure around them.
>
> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
> cats.

Oh I know! Matilda gets very stressed when she isn't able to socialize with
other cats in her special way. LOL

Judy


> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
> friends so they may learn as well.

Judy
November 4th 03, 05:36 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
>
> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
>
> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.

Try telling this to Matilda. Nothing she loves more (apart from her chow)
than to skin another cat. :c)
>
> > - unlike the
> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
> >structure around them.
>
> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
> cats.

Oh I know! Matilda gets very stressed when she isn't able to socialize with
other cats in her special way. LOL

Judy


> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
> friends so they may learn as well.

Judy
November 5th 03, 01:15 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
>
> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
>
> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.

Try telling this to Matilda. Nothing she loves more (apart from her chow)
than to skin another cat. :c)
>
> > - unlike the
> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
> >structure around them.
>
> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
> cats.

Oh I know! Matilda gets very stressed when she isn't able to socialize with
other cats in her special way. LOL

Judy


> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
> friends so they may learn as well.


"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
>
> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
>
> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.
>
> > - unlike the
> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
> >structure around them.
>
> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
> cats.
>
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
> friends so they may learn as well.

Judy
November 5th 03, 01:15 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
>
> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
>
> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.

Try telling this to Matilda. Nothing she loves more (apart from her chow)
than to skin another cat. :c)
>
> > - unlike the
> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
> >structure around them.
>
> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
> cats.

Oh I know! Matilda gets very stressed when she isn't able to socialize with
other cats in her special way. LOL

Judy


> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
> friends so they may learn as well.


"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
>
> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
>
> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.
>
> > - unlike the
> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
> >structure around them.
>
> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
> cats.
>
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
> friends so they may learn as well.

Bob Brenchley.
November 5th 03, 07:38 PM
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:36:35 -0500, "Judy" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
>>
>> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
>>
>> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.
>
>Try telling this to Matilda. Nothing she loves more (apart from her chow)
>than to skin another cat. :c)

Indeed, but establishing their status in the local social order is
part of the social nature of cats.
>>
>> > - unlike the
>> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
>> >structure around them.
>>
>> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
>> cats.
>
>Oh I know! Matilda gets very stressed when she isn't able to socialize with
>other cats in her special way. LOL

I know a couple of humans like that :)
>
>Judy
>
--
Bob.

Laugh and the world laughs with you... Cry, and the world looks
sheepish and suddenly remembers it had other plans.

Bob Brenchley.
November 5th 03, 07:38 PM
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:36:35 -0500, "Judy" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
>>
>> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
>>
>> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.
>
>Try telling this to Matilda. Nothing she loves more (apart from her chow)
>than to skin another cat. :c)

Indeed, but establishing their status in the local social order is
part of the social nature of cats.
>>
>> > - unlike the
>> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a social
>> >structure around them.
>>
>> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
>> cats.
>
>Oh I know! Matilda gets very stressed when she isn't able to socialize with
>other cats in her special way. LOL

I know a couple of humans like that :)
>
>Judy
>
--
Bob.

Laugh and the world laughs with you... Cry, and the world looks
sheepish and suddenly remembers it had other plans.

Bob Brenchley.
November 5th 03, 07:45 PM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:58:25 -0600, Ted Davis
> wrote:

>On 3 Nov 2003 06:50:44 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>
>>I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
>>cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).
>>
>>I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
>>are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
>>for her, so I have a few questions:
>>
>>
>>1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
>>gender should the kitten be?
>>
>>2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
>>don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
>>it would hurt her to part company with me.
>
>I see that Bob Brenchley is making a nuisance of himself here now. He
>probably appears in more killfiles than anyone else in the cat and
>legal groups. He is best filtered out; if you can't filter him,
>ignore him. *Don't respond to him.* I notice he as added a warning
>to his header about quoting him except in direct replies - that is
>clearly to discourage the "you said this there and the opposite here -
>which is it?" discussions that always follow his appearance.
>
Stupid idiot troll.

>As for your cat questions. Cats bond more readily with places than
>with people, though this certainly does occur.

While places are important to cats - their relationship with humans
far outweighs that.

> The main effect is
>that it is more difficult to successfully rehome a cat that has
>established himself. They are also territorial, which can make it
>difficult to introduce new cats. None of this applies very much to
>kittens - they are easily rehomed and most easily introduced to
>another kitten.
>
>While cats are naturally solitary,

No they are not, they are highly social and most do prefer to have
company.

> their natural environment is far
>from sterile and includes interactions with all sorts of other
>animals: a lone kitten in a house with no other animals and no people
>is starved for stimulation. Multiple cats usually get along well
>enough that they keep each other stimulated without killing each
>other. I strongly recommend at least one more kitten. I have good
>results with multiple (neutered) males, but my (spayed) females don't
>get along nearly as well with each other, and for that matter some
>don't get along with the males, not even their own brothers, as well
>as the other males do (but Millie and Snowball get along with
>everybody) - a male might be the best bet.
>
>Now I'm going to change the Bob Brenchley filter to global scope.

Oh do shut up you stupid troll.

--
Bob.

I read your mind, and believe me, it was a short story...

Bob Brenchley.
November 5th 03, 07:45 PM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:58:25 -0600, Ted Davis
> wrote:

>On 3 Nov 2003 06:50:44 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>
>>I have a spayed female kitten (a month or so old?). She's an indoor
>>cat and is pretty needy (meows when I'm not around, etc...).
>>
>>I work full time and I spend time with friends on weekends, so there
>>are long periods when she's alone at home. I want to do what's best
>>for her, so I have a few questions:
>>
>>
>>1) Should I get another kitten to keep her company? If so, what
>>gender should the kitten be?
>>
>>2) Should I give her away to folks who already have some cats? I
>>don't know if she's "bonded" with me or not so I don't know how much
>>it would hurt her to part company with me.
>
>I see that Bob Brenchley is making a nuisance of himself here now. He
>probably appears in more killfiles than anyone else in the cat and
>legal groups. He is best filtered out; if you can't filter him,
>ignore him. *Don't respond to him.* I notice he as added a warning
>to his header about quoting him except in direct replies - that is
>clearly to discourage the "you said this there and the opposite here -
>which is it?" discussions that always follow his appearance.
>
Stupid idiot troll.

>As for your cat questions. Cats bond more readily with places than
>with people, though this certainly does occur.

While places are important to cats - their relationship with humans
far outweighs that.

> The main effect is
>that it is more difficult to successfully rehome a cat that has
>established himself. They are also territorial, which can make it
>difficult to introduce new cats. None of this applies very much to
>kittens - they are easily rehomed and most easily introduced to
>another kitten.
>
>While cats are naturally solitary,

No they are not, they are highly social and most do prefer to have
company.

> their natural environment is far
>from sterile and includes interactions with all sorts of other
>animals: a lone kitten in a house with no other animals and no people
>is starved for stimulation. Multiple cats usually get along well
>enough that they keep each other stimulated without killing each
>other. I strongly recommend at least one more kitten. I have good
>results with multiple (neutered) males, but my (spayed) females don't
>get along nearly as well with each other, and for that matter some
>don't get along with the males, not even their own brothers, as well
>as the other males do (but Millie and Snowball get along with
>everybody) - a male might be the best bet.
>
>Now I'm going to change the Bob Brenchley filter to global scope.

Oh do shut up you stupid troll.

--
Bob.

I read your mind, and believe me, it was a short story...

Judy
November 6th 03, 05:39 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:36:35 -0500, "Judy" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
> >>
> >> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.
> >
> >Try telling this to Matilda. Nothing she loves more (apart from her chow)
> >than to skin another cat. :c)
>
> Indeed, but establishing their status in the local social order is
> part of the social nature of cats.

I agree and when it comes to the local social order - Matilda prefers to be
on top of things.

> >>
> >> > - unlike the
> >> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a
social
> >> >structure around them.
> >>
> >> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
> >> cats.
> >
> >Oh I know! Matilda gets very stressed when she isn't able to socialize
with
> >other cats in her special way. LOL
>
> I know a couple of humans like that :)

How true! At times there's nothing better than a good "hissy fit." Keeps
life interesting and the ball rolling. :c)

Judy
> >
> --
> Bob.
>
> Laugh and the world laughs with you... Cry, and the world looks
> sheepish and suddenly remembers it had other plans.

Judy
November 6th 03, 05:39 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:36:35 -0500, "Judy" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:52:41 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Remember that cats do not need to be social creatures
> >>
> >> Yes they do - they are highly social creatures.
> >
> >Try telling this to Matilda. Nothing she loves more (apart from her chow)
> >than to skin another cat. :c)
>
> Indeed, but establishing their status in the local social order is
> part of the social nature of cats.

I agree and when it comes to the local social order - Matilda prefers to be
on top of things.

> >>
> >> > - unlike the
> >> >pack-orientated dog; they function happily on their own without a
social
> >> >structure around them.
> >>
> >> No they do not, that is one of the most common causes of stress in
> >> cats.
> >
> >Oh I know! Matilda gets very stressed when she isn't able to socialize
with
> >other cats in her special way. LOL
>
> I know a couple of humans like that :)

How true! At times there's nothing better than a good "hissy fit." Keeps
life interesting and the ball rolling. :c)

Judy
> >
> --
> Bob.
>
> Laugh and the world laughs with you... Cry, and the world looks
> sheepish and suddenly remembers it had other plans.

Iso
November 6th 03, 06:51 PM
Cats are indeed a solitary species. But they can and do live in groups. This
seems confusing to us because we are social animals and have a difficult
time understanding and accepting a different social structure. Our other
companion pet, the dog, is also a social or pack animal. He fits right in
with our way of thinking and living. The cat does not. We tend to look at
our pets as little people with human emotions and needs. When our cat does
not accept or become friends with the new cat we bring home, we
automatically think something is wrong and that both cats are unhappy.
That's because we're superimposing on the cat our standards for "happiness."
Cats can live in groups but they don't need to. For social/pack animals such
as humans and dogs, living and functioning as a group is a necessity. The
process of domestication facilitates social interaction of cats with other
cats and humans. Kittens are usually quite friendly and playful with other
cats and their human family. They participate in family functions. We
perpetuate these kitten qualities through ongoing care and play with them.
The kitten matures physically, but mentally retains kitten-like behavior.
Cats that retain kitten-like behavior adjust to and probably prefer group
living.

Iso
November 6th 03, 06:51 PM
Cats are indeed a solitary species. But they can and do live in groups. This
seems confusing to us because we are social animals and have a difficult
time understanding and accepting a different social structure. Our other
companion pet, the dog, is also a social or pack animal. He fits right in
with our way of thinking and living. The cat does not. We tend to look at
our pets as little people with human emotions and needs. When our cat does
not accept or become friends with the new cat we bring home, we
automatically think something is wrong and that both cats are unhappy.
That's because we're superimposing on the cat our standards for "happiness."
Cats can live in groups but they don't need to. For social/pack animals such
as humans and dogs, living and functioning as a group is a necessity. The
process of domestication facilitates social interaction of cats with other
cats and humans. Kittens are usually quite friendly and playful with other
cats and their human family. They participate in family functions. We
perpetuate these kitten qualities through ongoing care and play with them.
The kitten matures physically, but mentally retains kitten-like behavior.
Cats that retain kitten-like behavior adjust to and probably prefer group
living.

Bob Brenchley.
November 6th 03, 08:15 PM
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:51:03 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:

>Cats are indeed a solitary species.

No they are not, far from it.

>But they can and do live in groups.

They prefer to live in groups, though they will toller ate isolation.

>This
>seems confusing to us because we are social animals and have a difficult
>time understanding and accepting a different social structure. Our other
>companion pet, the dog, is also a social or pack animal.

The dog is a pack animal, not a social animal - there is a difference.

>He fits right in
>with our way of thinking and living.

No, the dog fits in with th e common human misconception that we are
the bosses.

>The cat does not.

Toooooo true - the cats knows IT is the boss.

>We tend to look at
>our pets as little people with human emotions and needs.

Not if we are real animal lovers.

>When our cat does
>not accept or become friends with the new cat we bring home, we
>automatically think something is wrong and that both cats are unhappy.
>That's because we're superimposing on the cat our standards for "happiness."
>Cats can live in groups but they don't need to.

Cats can live in isolation, but they don't like to - they prefer a
social group.

>For social/pack animals such
>as humans and dogs, living and functioning as a group is a necessity.

You confuse two different things. Dogs are pack animals, while it is a
form of socialization it is not the same as the complex social
structures of humans and cats.

> The
>process of domestication facilitates social interaction of cats with other
>cats and humans.

Cats are not domesticated.

>Kittens are usually quite friendly and playful with other
>cats and their human family. They participate in family functions. We
>perpetuate these kitten qualities through ongoing care and play with them.
>The kitten matures physically, but mentally retains kitten-like behavior.
>Cats that retain kitten-like behavior adjust to and probably prefer group
>living.

One reason cats moved in with man is that it gave the cat even greater
scope for social relationships - both with humans and with other cats.

Over the last 10 or so thousand years the cat has trained us very
well, real cat lovers allow their cats to be cats while providing them
with shelter and good food. I hope our partnership with cats lasts
another 10,000 years.

--
Bob.

Cats know what we feel. They don't always care, but they know.

Bob Brenchley.
November 6th 03, 08:15 PM
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:51:03 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:

>Cats are indeed a solitary species.

No they are not, far from it.

>But they can and do live in groups.

They prefer to live in groups, though they will toller ate isolation.

>This
>seems confusing to us because we are social animals and have a difficult
>time understanding and accepting a different social structure. Our other
>companion pet, the dog, is also a social or pack animal.

The dog is a pack animal, not a social animal - there is a difference.

>He fits right in
>with our way of thinking and living.

No, the dog fits in with th e common human misconception that we are
the bosses.

>The cat does not.

Toooooo true - the cats knows IT is the boss.

>We tend to look at
>our pets as little people with human emotions and needs.

Not if we are real animal lovers.

>When our cat does
>not accept or become friends with the new cat we bring home, we
>automatically think something is wrong and that both cats are unhappy.
>That's because we're superimposing on the cat our standards for "happiness."
>Cats can live in groups but they don't need to.

Cats can live in isolation, but they don't like to - they prefer a
social group.

>For social/pack animals such
>as humans and dogs, living and functioning as a group is a necessity.

You confuse two different things. Dogs are pack animals, while it is a
form of socialization it is not the same as the complex social
structures of humans and cats.

> The
>process of domestication facilitates social interaction of cats with other
>cats and humans.

Cats are not domesticated.

>Kittens are usually quite friendly and playful with other
>cats and their human family. They participate in family functions. We
>perpetuate these kitten qualities through ongoing care and play with them.
>The kitten matures physically, but mentally retains kitten-like behavior.
>Cats that retain kitten-like behavior adjust to and probably prefer group
>living.

One reason cats moved in with man is that it gave the cat even greater
scope for social relationships - both with humans and with other cats.

Over the last 10 or so thousand years the cat has trained us very
well, real cat lovers allow their cats to be cats while providing them
with shelter and good food. I hope our partnership with cats lasts
another 10,000 years.

--
Bob.

Cats know what we feel. They don't always care, but they know.

kaeli
November 6th 03, 09:27 PM
In article >,
enlightened us with...
>
> Cats are not domesticated.
>


Domestication
Definition:

1. [n] accommodation to domestic life; "her explorer husband
resisted all her attempts at domestication"
2. [n] the attribute of having been domesticated
3. [n] adaptation to intimate association with human beings


Synonyms: tameness

Antonyms: wildness

See Also: accommodation, adaptation, adjustment,
flexibility, tractability, tractableness

---
http://www.lam.mus.ca.us/cats/P24/
n the beginning, cats were probably tolerated by humans because they
killed the mice and rats that ate their food stores. Full domestication
of the cat as a household companion likely occurred in Egypt about 4,000
years ago. To overcome the natural fear that wild cats had of humans,
they were most likely captured as kittens and hand-reared.

---
http://wildlife.wisc.edu/extension/catfly3.htm
Domestic cats originated from an ancestral wild species, Felis
silvestris, the European and African Wild Cat. The domestic cat is now
considered a separate species, named Felis catus. In appearance,
domestic cats are similar to their wild relatives, and many of their
behaviors, such as hunting and other activity patterns, remain
essentially unchanged from their ancestral form. Cats were first
domesticated in Egypt around 2000 BC [1]. Domestic cats spread slowly to
other parts of the globe, possibly because Egyptians prevented export of
the animal they worshiped as a goddess. However, by 500 BC the Greeks
had acquired domestic cats, and they spread cats throughout their sphere
of influence. The Romans introduced the domestic cat to Britain by 300
AD. Domestic cats have now been introduced around the world, mostly by
colonists from Europe.

-------------------------------------------------
~kaeli~
Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu
thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
-------------------------------------------------

kaeli
November 6th 03, 09:27 PM
In article >,
enlightened us with...
>
> Cats are not domesticated.
>


Domestication
Definition:

1. [n] accommodation to domestic life; "her explorer husband
resisted all her attempts at domestication"
2. [n] the attribute of having been domesticated
3. [n] adaptation to intimate association with human beings


Synonyms: tameness

Antonyms: wildness

See Also: accommodation, adaptation, adjustment,
flexibility, tractability, tractableness

---
http://www.lam.mus.ca.us/cats/P24/
n the beginning, cats were probably tolerated by humans because they
killed the mice and rats that ate their food stores. Full domestication
of the cat as a household companion likely occurred in Egypt about 4,000
years ago. To overcome the natural fear that wild cats had of humans,
they were most likely captured as kittens and hand-reared.

---
http://wildlife.wisc.edu/extension/catfly3.htm
Domestic cats originated from an ancestral wild species, Felis
silvestris, the European and African Wild Cat. The domestic cat is now
considered a separate species, named Felis catus. In appearance,
domestic cats are similar to their wild relatives, and many of their
behaviors, such as hunting and other activity patterns, remain
essentially unchanged from their ancestral form. Cats were first
domesticated in Egypt around 2000 BC [1]. Domestic cats spread slowly to
other parts of the globe, possibly because Egyptians prevented export of
the animal they worshiped as a goddess. However, by 500 BC the Greeks
had acquired domestic cats, and they spread cats throughout their sphere
of influence. The Romans introduced the domestic cat to Britain by 300
AD. Domestic cats have now been introduced around the world, mostly by
colonists from Europe.

-------------------------------------------------
~kaeli~
Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu
thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
-------------------------------------------------

Iso
November 6th 03, 10:17 PM
Bob,



I respectfully disagree with you. "Domestic" cats tend to be solitary.
They do not form large groups with complex social structures as do dogs.
Cats are also very territorial by nature, some more so than others. However
because their social organizations are somewhat flexible, some cats are
relatively tolerant of sharing their house and territory with multiple cats
socially. It is not uncommon for a cat to tolerate certain other family
cats, but not get along with others in the house. In general, the more cats
you have, the more likely it is that some of your cats will begin fighting
with each other. I tend to presuppose that if the cat has been solitary the
majority of its life, and another cat is introduced there is a fifty, fifty
chance of the solitary cat accepting the new cat. The topic we are disputing
has been argued centuries, and will continue to be argued for many more.



Regarding, the domestication of the common cat; technically speaking, cats
still are in the early stages of becoming a domestic animal, but the cats of
today are very much domesticated. What we do know is that the common cat
hasn't changed genetically much from the Egyptian times, although smaller in
size and stature. Needless to say, I think you are misunderstanding the
definition of domestication. It means to train or adapt (an animal or plant)
to live in a human environment and be of use to humans, or to introduce and
accustom (an animal or plant) into another region; naturalize. So, by
definition the common house cat is domesticated. We as a class of humans
continued to domesticate cats, just as the Egyptians did, and for the same
reasons. Unfortunately, today the vast majority of cats are more for
novelty, and not for utility, not that there is necessarily anything wrong
with that. As you and I both already know, cats make great pets. The role of
the common cat has changed, unless you have a rodent problem or you live on
a farm.



Furthermore, regarding your opinion of "One reason cats moved in with man is
that it gave the cat even greater scope for social relationships - both with
humans and with other cats" that may be true, but again I respectfully
disagree. As early as 3500 B.C., Egyptians were domesticating wildcats from
Africa. These domesticated wildcats became treasured pets, and were honored
in many forms of artwork for their skill in hunting and killing rodents,
such as snakes, rats and mice. Cats first came to Europe and the Middle East
about 1000 B.C., most likely from Greek and Phoenician traders. The ancient
Greeks and Romans also highly valued cats for their ability to control
undesirable rodents. Europeans once more began to realize the important role
cats played in controlling rodents, and cats gradually regained their
popularity. Traders, explorers and colonists brought domestic cats with them
to the New World during the 1600's and 1700's, and settlers continued to
take their cats with them as they moved towards the West. Most all the cats
of today in North America are descendants of these cats. Moreover, cats didn
't move in with man, we moved them in with us for utility. The rest is
history.

Iso
November 6th 03, 10:17 PM
Bob,



I respectfully disagree with you. "Domestic" cats tend to be solitary.
They do not form large groups with complex social structures as do dogs.
Cats are also very territorial by nature, some more so than others. However
because their social organizations are somewhat flexible, some cats are
relatively tolerant of sharing their house and territory with multiple cats
socially. It is not uncommon for a cat to tolerate certain other family
cats, but not get along with others in the house. In general, the more cats
you have, the more likely it is that some of your cats will begin fighting
with each other. I tend to presuppose that if the cat has been solitary the
majority of its life, and another cat is introduced there is a fifty, fifty
chance of the solitary cat accepting the new cat. The topic we are disputing
has been argued centuries, and will continue to be argued for many more.



Regarding, the domestication of the common cat; technically speaking, cats
still are in the early stages of becoming a domestic animal, but the cats of
today are very much domesticated. What we do know is that the common cat
hasn't changed genetically much from the Egyptian times, although smaller in
size and stature. Needless to say, I think you are misunderstanding the
definition of domestication. It means to train or adapt (an animal or plant)
to live in a human environment and be of use to humans, or to introduce and
accustom (an animal or plant) into another region; naturalize. So, by
definition the common house cat is domesticated. We as a class of humans
continued to domesticate cats, just as the Egyptians did, and for the same
reasons. Unfortunately, today the vast majority of cats are more for
novelty, and not for utility, not that there is necessarily anything wrong
with that. As you and I both already know, cats make great pets. The role of
the common cat has changed, unless you have a rodent problem or you live on
a farm.



Furthermore, regarding your opinion of "One reason cats moved in with man is
that it gave the cat even greater scope for social relationships - both with
humans and with other cats" that may be true, but again I respectfully
disagree. As early as 3500 B.C., Egyptians were domesticating wildcats from
Africa. These domesticated wildcats became treasured pets, and were honored
in many forms of artwork for their skill in hunting and killing rodents,
such as snakes, rats and mice. Cats first came to Europe and the Middle East
about 1000 B.C., most likely from Greek and Phoenician traders. The ancient
Greeks and Romans also highly valued cats for their ability to control
undesirable rodents. Europeans once more began to realize the important role
cats played in controlling rodents, and cats gradually regained their
popularity. Traders, explorers and colonists brought domestic cats with them
to the New World during the 1600's and 1700's, and settlers continued to
take their cats with them as they moved towards the West. Most all the cats
of today in North America are descendants of these cats. Moreover, cats didn
't move in with man, we moved them in with us for utility. The rest is
history.

Bob Brenchley.
November 7th 03, 07:32 PM
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:17:54 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:

>Bob,
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree with you. "Domestic" cats tend to be solitary.

Cats the world over prove you wrong.

>They do not form large groups with complex social structures as do dogs.

They form groups with far more complex structures than dogs.

>Cats are also very territorial by nature, some more so than others.

Very true, and they will defend their territory very well from
outsiders unless the outsider makes the right approach.

> However
>because their social organizations are somewhat flexible, some cats are
>relatively tolerant of sharing their house and territory with multiple cats
>socially.

Sharing their territory with other cats is part of their nature,
though of course those humans cruel enough to attempt to restrict
their cats territory will cause the cat some serious problems.

> It is not uncommon for a cat to tolerate certain other family
>cats, but not get along with others in the house. In general, the more cats
>you have, the more likely it is that some of your cats will begin fighting
>with each other.

Each cat has to learn its place in the local cat society, and cat
society being so complex this can take time and may involve fights.

> I tend to presuppose that if the cat has been solitary the
>majority of its life, and another cat is introduced there is a fifty, fifty
>chance of the solitary cat accepting the new cat. The topic we are disputing
>has been argued centuries, and will continue to be argued for many more.

Only people who do not understand cats would argue, the rest of us
just accept their ways.
>
>
>
>Regarding, the domestication of the common cat; technically speaking, cats
>still are in the early stages of becoming a domestic animal, but the cats of
>today are very much domesticated.

No it isn't. It is a wild animal that, for many reasons, finds it
useful to live with man.

> What we do know is that the common cat
>hasn't changed genetically much from the Egyptian times, although smaller in
>size and stature. Needless to say, I think you are misunderstanding the
>definition of domestication. It means to train or adapt (an animal or plant)
>to live in a human environment

Something we have not done with the cat.

Maybe we could say that the cat has domesticated humans, it would in
reality be a far more truthful statement.

>and be of use to humans, or to introduce and
>accustom (an animal or plant) into another region; naturalize. So, by
>definition the common house cat is domesticated. We as a class of humans
>continued to domesticate cats, just as the Egyptians did, and for the same
>reasons. Unfortunately, today the vast majority of cats are more for
>novelty, and not for utility, not that there is necessarily anything wrong
>with that. As you and I both already know, cats make great pets. The role of
>the common cat has changed, unless you have a rodent problem or you live on
>a farm.
>
>
>
>Furthermore, regarding your opinion of "One reason cats moved in with man is
>that it gave the cat even greater scope for social relationships - both with
>humans and with other cats" that may be true, but again I respectfully
>disagree. As early as 3500 B.C., Egyptians were domesticating wildcats from
>Africa.

Try adding at least another 4,000 years to that.

>These domesticated wildcats became treasured pets, and were honored
>in many forms of artwork for their skill in hunting and killing rodents,
>such as snakes, rats and mice.

The reality is slightly different. Humans started to store food, maybe
as early as 10,000 BC. This attracted rats and mice and they in turn
attracted the cats. Cats soon learned that humans were not a major
danger to them and that they could live very close to, or even inside,
human communities.

A really close relationship did probable start with humans hand
rearing some kittens, but the cats soon got the hang of the fact that
humans would often feed them and allow them shelter.

Certainly by around 6,000 BC cats could be found in the Middle East
almost anywhere humans were, in fact there has been evidence put
forward that cats were more populous than dogs.


>Cats first came to Europe and the Middle East
>about 1000 B.C., most likely from Greek and Phoenician traders. The ancient
>Greeks and Romans also highly valued cats for their ability to control
>undesirable rodents. Europeans once more began to realize the important role
>cats played in controlling rodents, and cats gradually regained their
>popularity. Traders, explorers and colonists brought domestic cats with them
>to the New World during the 1600's and 1700's, and settlers continued to
>take their cats with them as they moved towards the West. Most all the cats
>of today in North America are descendants of these cats. Moreover, cats didn
>'t move in with man, we moved them in with us for utility. The rest is
>history.
>
As you say - it is all history. However, you do need to study the
history. A lot of what you say was held to be true even ten years ago,
but the studies that have pushed back the dating of Egyptian
civilization by several thousand years have also helped to shed light
on how cats became our best allies.

--
Bob.

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be
Light." And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

Bob Brenchley.
November 7th 03, 07:32 PM
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:17:54 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:

>Bob,
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree with you. "Domestic" cats tend to be solitary.

Cats the world over prove you wrong.

>They do not form large groups with complex social structures as do dogs.

They form groups with far more complex structures than dogs.

>Cats are also very territorial by nature, some more so than others.

Very true, and they will defend their territory very well from
outsiders unless the outsider makes the right approach.

> However
>because their social organizations are somewhat flexible, some cats are
>relatively tolerant of sharing their house and territory with multiple cats
>socially.

Sharing their territory with other cats is part of their nature,
though of course those humans cruel enough to attempt to restrict
their cats territory will cause the cat some serious problems.

> It is not uncommon for a cat to tolerate certain other family
>cats, but not get along with others in the house. In general, the more cats
>you have, the more likely it is that some of your cats will begin fighting
>with each other.

Each cat has to learn its place in the local cat society, and cat
society being so complex this can take time and may involve fights.

> I tend to presuppose that if the cat has been solitary the
>majority of its life, and another cat is introduced there is a fifty, fifty
>chance of the solitary cat accepting the new cat. The topic we are disputing
>has been argued centuries, and will continue to be argued for many more.

Only people who do not understand cats would argue, the rest of us
just accept their ways.
>
>
>
>Regarding, the domestication of the common cat; technically speaking, cats
>still are in the early stages of becoming a domestic animal, but the cats of
>today are very much domesticated.

No it isn't. It is a wild animal that, for many reasons, finds it
useful to live with man.

> What we do know is that the common cat
>hasn't changed genetically much from the Egyptian times, although smaller in
>size and stature. Needless to say, I think you are misunderstanding the
>definition of domestication. It means to train or adapt (an animal or plant)
>to live in a human environment

Something we have not done with the cat.

Maybe we could say that the cat has domesticated humans, it would in
reality be a far more truthful statement.

>and be of use to humans, or to introduce and
>accustom (an animal or plant) into another region; naturalize. So, by
>definition the common house cat is domesticated. We as a class of humans
>continued to domesticate cats, just as the Egyptians did, and for the same
>reasons. Unfortunately, today the vast majority of cats are more for
>novelty, and not for utility, not that there is necessarily anything wrong
>with that. As you and I both already know, cats make great pets. The role of
>the common cat has changed, unless you have a rodent problem or you live on
>a farm.
>
>
>
>Furthermore, regarding your opinion of "One reason cats moved in with man is
>that it gave the cat even greater scope for social relationships - both with
>humans and with other cats" that may be true, but again I respectfully
>disagree. As early as 3500 B.C., Egyptians were domesticating wildcats from
>Africa.

Try adding at least another 4,000 years to that.

>These domesticated wildcats became treasured pets, and were honored
>in many forms of artwork for their skill in hunting and killing rodents,
>such as snakes, rats and mice.

The reality is slightly different. Humans started to store food, maybe
as early as 10,000 BC. This attracted rats and mice and they in turn
attracted the cats. Cats soon learned that humans were not a major
danger to them and that they could live very close to, or even inside,
human communities.

A really close relationship did probable start with humans hand
rearing some kittens, but the cats soon got the hang of the fact that
humans would often feed them and allow them shelter.

Certainly by around 6,000 BC cats could be found in the Middle East
almost anywhere humans were, in fact there has been evidence put
forward that cats were more populous than dogs.


>Cats first came to Europe and the Middle East
>about 1000 B.C., most likely from Greek and Phoenician traders. The ancient
>Greeks and Romans also highly valued cats for their ability to control
>undesirable rodents. Europeans once more began to realize the important role
>cats played in controlling rodents, and cats gradually regained their
>popularity. Traders, explorers and colonists brought domestic cats with them
>to the New World during the 1600's and 1700's, and settlers continued to
>take their cats with them as they moved towards the West. Most all the cats
>of today in North America are descendants of these cats. Moreover, cats didn
>'t move in with man, we moved them in with us for utility. The rest is
>history.
>
As you say - it is all history. However, you do need to study the
history. A lot of what you say was held to be true even ten years ago,
but the studies that have pushed back the dating of Egyptian
civilization by several thousand years have also helped to shed light
on how cats became our best allies.

--
Bob.

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be
Light." And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

Iso
November 7th 03, 10:17 PM
Bob,



I refuse to get into a ****ing contest regarding when cats allegedly
became useful to humans and if house cats form social structures. My PhD is
not in feline physiology, history or animal psychology. The only point that
I am attempting to make is that the original poster of this thread would be
foolish to think to add another cat to her household, simply because she
feels as though her cat is lonely. Still, I respectfully disagree with you
regarding your definition of domestication and your statement " the reason
cats moved in with man is that it gave the cat even greater scope for social
relationships - both with humans and with other cats;" although you believe
it to be true, I disagree. The figures that I posted in my preceding post
were to be used as ball park figures not hard referenced, exact dates. I am
not going to write another dissertation, nor argue my point to any further
extent. You believe what you will, and I will do the same. It is fruitless
for us to squabble about this topic anymore.

Iso
November 7th 03, 10:17 PM
Bob,



I refuse to get into a ****ing contest regarding when cats allegedly
became useful to humans and if house cats form social structures. My PhD is
not in feline physiology, history or animal psychology. The only point that
I am attempting to make is that the original poster of this thread would be
foolish to think to add another cat to her household, simply because she
feels as though her cat is lonely. Still, I respectfully disagree with you
regarding your definition of domestication and your statement " the reason
cats moved in with man is that it gave the cat even greater scope for social
relationships - both with humans and with other cats;" although you believe
it to be true, I disagree. The figures that I posted in my preceding post
were to be used as ball park figures not hard referenced, exact dates. I am
not going to write another dissertation, nor argue my point to any further
extent. You believe what you will, and I will do the same. It is fruitless
for us to squabble about this topic anymore.

Bob Brenchley.
November 8th 03, 06:32 PM
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:17:31 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:

>Bob,
>
>
>
> I refuse to get into a ****ing contest regarding when cats allegedly
>became useful to humans and if house cats form social structures. My PhD is
>not in feline physiology, history or animal psychology. The only point that
>I am attempting to make is that the original poster of this thread would be
>foolish to think to add another cat to her household, simply because she
>feels as though her cat is lonely.

My point is that cats ARE social animals, not solitary ones. One cat
on its own is rarely happy. That said, the number of cats a normal
person can keep is far less than the number needed to make a proper
social structure for cats - one of the many reasons cats need time
outside most days.

>Still, I respectfully disagree with you
>regarding your definition of domestication and your statement " the reason
>cats moved in with man is that it gave the cat even greater scope for social
>relationships - both with humans and with other cats;" although you believe
>it to be true, I disagree.

Hard luck. By moving in with humans, or at least living in human
communities, cats could live at a far higher social density as there
was less competition for food. Results, happy cats and happy humans.

>The figures that I posted in my preceding post
>were to be used as ball park figures not hard referenced, exact dates. I am
>not going to write another dissertation, nor argue my point to any further
>extent. You believe what you will, and I will do the same. It is fruitless
>for us to squabble about this topic anymore.

But to understand cats you need to understand their history.

--
Bob.

Cat's motto: No matter what you've done wrong, always try to make it
look like the dog did it.

Bob Brenchley.
November 8th 03, 06:32 PM
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:17:31 GMT, "Iso" > wrote:

>Bob,
>
>
>
> I refuse to get into a ****ing contest regarding when cats allegedly
>became useful to humans and if house cats form social structures. My PhD is
>not in feline physiology, history or animal psychology. The only point that
>I am attempting to make is that the original poster of this thread would be
>foolish to think to add another cat to her household, simply because she
>feels as though her cat is lonely.

My point is that cats ARE social animals, not solitary ones. One cat
on its own is rarely happy. That said, the number of cats a normal
person can keep is far less than the number needed to make a proper
social structure for cats - one of the many reasons cats need time
outside most days.

>Still, I respectfully disagree with you
>regarding your definition of domestication and your statement " the reason
>cats moved in with man is that it gave the cat even greater scope for social
>relationships - both with humans and with other cats;" although you believe
>it to be true, I disagree.

Hard luck. By moving in with humans, or at least living in human
communities, cats could live at a far higher social density as there
was less competition for food. Results, happy cats and happy humans.

>The figures that I posted in my preceding post
>were to be used as ball park figures not hard referenced, exact dates. I am
>not going to write another dissertation, nor argue my point to any further
>extent. You believe what you will, and I will do the same. It is fruitless
>for us to squabble about this topic anymore.

But to understand cats you need to understand their history.

--
Bob.

Cat's motto: No matter what you've done wrong, always try to make it
look like the dog did it.