| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Call it what it is: killed NOT euthanized
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 |
"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. |
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. |
"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. |
"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". |
"-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. |
"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. |
"-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!*** |
"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. |
|
"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. |
"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 |
"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. |
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 |
"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 |
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
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". |
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 |
"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. |
"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? |
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 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 |
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" wrote in message om... (Tracy) wrote in message . com... 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 |
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. |
"Agua Girl" wrote in message t...
"Ray Ban" wrote in message om... (Tracy) wrote in message . com... 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. |
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. |
|
| 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 |
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. |
"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. |
|
| 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 |
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. |
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. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CatBanter.com