Outdoor vs Indoor Cats Again!
 

I've followed this debate in many threads across several groups, and there is
one point I have not seen raised.

30 years ago I was coming home from my night job at 4 AM and while walking in
the street (NYC) a dozen blocks from my home, I came across a really friendly
orange tabby. He kept coming up to me and I would walk away, and he would come
back. He was most friendly, obviously people oriented, and in my opinion he
was a housecat who for some reason had been displaced from his house. I took
him home and named him ECO, or ECHO, Eco, short for economics, because I wasn't
sure I could afford to keep him; and, ECHO, because he kept coming back.

Once at my home, Eco seemed restless and he often tried to go out the window to
the fireescape. Once, he jumped across an open window to the windowsill across
an open airshaft. He was stuck there on the ledge and I had to go to the
building next door to bring him in. A couple of weeks later, on Thanksgiving,
1974, my younger brother brought me a kitten, which I named Turkey (after all
it was Thanksgiving). Turkey and Eco lived together for one week before Eco
managed to squeeze through a small opening in the fire escape window, and he
disappeared.

Why am I telling you this? Well, I think Echo was someone's cat from a half
mile away, and I, out of good nature, took him to my home. What was Eco's
original owner thinking when he never returned as he usually did? Why did I
take him if that is what I thought? Well, it is because I didn't know. Maybe
Eco was lost, and needed someone to care for him, he certainly latched on to
me. What happened to him? He certainly wasn't familiar with the new
neighborhood he found himself in.

One of the main reasons I would never let my cat (MY PET, MY COMPANION) out, is
because one day he may not return And, it might not be because he or she was a
victim of a tragedy; perhaps someone like me took him for his own. I'd never
know. I would be left with photos on handbills taped to lamppoles with a LOST
CAT headline.

I think pet owners should understand the difference between wild, feral
animals, and domesticated ones. Our pets need our protection more than they
need to be allowed to roam around at will.

Just my two cents. If you want to see my most recent additions, follow this
link to Mickey & Daisy.

http://hometown.aol.com/borninthebronx/index.html

On 04 Jan 2004 16:02:56 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

I think pet owners should understand the difference between wild, feral
animals, and domesticated ones. Our pets need our protection more than they
need to be allowed to roam around at will.

Just my two cents.

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.

--
Bob.

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

On 04 Jan 2004 16:02:56 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

I think pet owners should understand the difference between wild, feral
animals, and domesticated ones. Our pets need our protection more than they
need to be allowed to roam around at will.

Just my two cents.

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.

--
Bob.

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

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable
to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


Liar!

LT

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable
to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


Liar!

LT

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish. I have decided to take an
animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service) and
keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in short .
.. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
against their will.

In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat in
the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them in
better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or cooler
than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away from
predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would like or
would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as they
would in the wild.

NO, I am certainly not cruel! Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they have
been doing it for a very long time. So, I have taken pets which are already on
this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of me to
let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives. It
would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
population of unwanted animals could explode.

So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me ask
you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish. I have decided to take an
animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service) and
keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in short .
.. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
against their will.

In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat in
the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them in
better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or cooler
than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away from
predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would like or
would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as they
would in the wild.

NO, I am certainly not cruel! Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they have
been doing it for a very long time. So, I have taken pets which are already on
this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of me to
let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives. It
would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
population of unwanted animals could explode.

So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me ask
you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

"GovtLawyer" wrote in message
...
If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish. I have decided to
take an
animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service)
and
keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in
short .
. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
against their will.

In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat
in
the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them
in
better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or
cooler
than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away
from
predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would
like or
would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as
they
would in the wild.

What does this have to do with cats being allowed to spend some time
outside?

NO, I am certainly not cruel! Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they
have
been doing it for a very long time. So, I have taken pets which are
already on
this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of
me to
let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives.
It
would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
population of unwanted animals could explode.

Sounds to me like you're just looking for an arguement.

So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me
ask
you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

Bob doesn't need to hunt for total ignorants like yourself.

Do you happen to be into fishing?

"GovtLawyer" wrote in message
...
If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish. I have decided to
take an
animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service)
and
keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in
short .
. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
against their will.

In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat
in
the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them
in
better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or
cooler
than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away
from
predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would
like or
would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as
they
would in the wild.

What does this have to do with cats being allowed to spend some time
outside?

NO, I am certainly not cruel! Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they
have
been doing it for a very long time. So, I have taken pets which are
already on
this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of
me to
let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives.
It
would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
population of unwanted animals could explode.

Sounds to me like you're just looking for an arguement.

So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me
ask
you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

Bob doesn't need to hunt for total ignorants like yourself.

Do you happen to be into fishing?

Don't feed the trolls..they have no brains..and logic is just an undefined word
in the dictionary.

Don't feed the trolls..they have no brains..and logic is just an undefined word
in the dictionary.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:26:35 UTC, "wumpygirl"
wrote:

Hello Bob. Amusing yourself again, I see, by savaging
people who love their pets.

You must have quite a collection of First Stones.

LT

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:26:35 UTC, "wumpygirl"
wrote:

Hello Bob. Amusing yourself again, I see, by savaging
people who love their pets.

You must have quite a collection of First Stones.

LT

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:33:57 UTC, (GovtLawyer)
wrote:

Ask Bob how many First Stones he owns.

LT

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:33:57 UTC, (GovtLawyer)
wrote:

Ask Bob how many First Stones he owns.

LT

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:59 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
wrote:

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable
to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


Liar!

LT

Oh do shut up you stupid, lying, animal abusing troll.

--
Bob.

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

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:59 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
wrote:

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable
to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


Liar!

LT

Oh do shut up you stupid, lying, animal abusing troll.

--
Bob.

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

On 05 Jan 2004 01:33:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish.

Then please stop being selfish - it is not fair on the cats.

I have decided to take an
animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service) and
keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in short .
. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
against their will.

Sick.

In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat in
the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them in
better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or cooler
than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away from
predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would like or
would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as they
would in the wild.

As they would in the wild - maybe. Average age in the wild would be
about 7. However, the average age of an indoor-outdoor cat is no
different than that of an indoor only cat -- it just seems like longer
for the poor imprisoned cat that is cut off from so much that it needs
in the outside world.

NO, I am certainly not cruel!

Yes you are.

Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they have
been doing it for a very long time.

They have - and all over the world. And it is only really in the USA
that this abuse of animals is so widespread.

So, I have taken pets which are already on
this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of me to
let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives. It
would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
population of unwanted animals could explode.

So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me ask
you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

I'm neither an outdoorsman nor a hunter - in fact I campaign against
hunting in nearly all its forms.

What I am is an animal lover, one that knows enough about cats to call
you a very sick and cruel individual - a very selfish person who gives
no though to the basic needs of his cats.

I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
to root out abusers like you.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

On 05 Jan 2004 01:33:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.


I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish.

Then please stop being selfish - it is not fair on the cats.

I have decided to take an
animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service) and
keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in short .
. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
against their will.

Sick.

In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat in
the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them in
better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or cooler
than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away from
predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would like or
would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as they
would in the wild.

As they would in the wild - maybe. Average age in the wild would be
about 7. However, the average age of an indoor-outdoor cat is no
different than that of an indoor only cat -- it just seems like longer
for the poor imprisoned cat that is cut off from so much that it needs
in the outside world.

NO, I am certainly not cruel!

Yes you are.

Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they have
been doing it for a very long time.

They have - and all over the world. And it is only really in the USA
that this abuse of animals is so widespread.

So, I have taken pets which are already on
this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of me to
let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives. It
would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
population of unwanted animals could explode.

So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me ask
you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

I'm neither an outdoorsman nor a hunter - in fact I campaign against
hunting in nearly all its forms.

What I am is an animal lover, one that knows enough about cats to call
you a very sick and cruel individual - a very selfish person who gives
no though to the basic needs of his cats.

I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
to root out abusers like you.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:27:55 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:26:35 UTC, "wumpygirl"
wrote:

Hello Bob. Amusing yourself again, I see, by savaging
people who love their pets.

You must have quite a collection of First Stones.

LT



Do shut up you stupid animal abusing troll.

--
Bob.

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

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:27:55 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:26:35 UTC, "wumpygirl"
wrote:

Hello Bob. Amusing yourself again, I see, by savaging
people who love their pets.

You must have quite a collection of First Stones.

LT



Do shut up you stupid animal abusing troll.

--
Bob.

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

I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
to root out abusers like you.


Liar.

I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
to root out abusers like you.


Liar.

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:56:52 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
wrote:


I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
to root out abusers like you.


Liar.


You are - and a very sick trolling liar at that.

The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters (Cats Protection,
RSPCA, Battersea) nor most of the smaller ones that for various
reasons affiliate with the big boys, will normally rehome a healthy
cat to an indoor only environment. This has been confirmed on numerous
occasions by people who work at the grass roots level - actually
finding homes for cats.

I know trolls have trouble with facts, so I can't expect you to
understand them, but those are the facts and even a sick promotor of
animal abuse like you will just have to learn to live with them.

--
Bob.

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

On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:56:52 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
wrote:


I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
to root out abusers like you.


Liar.


You are - and a very sick trolling liar at that.

The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters (Cats Protection,
RSPCA, Battersea) nor most of the smaller ones that for various
reasons affiliate with the big boys, will normally rehome a healthy
cat to an indoor only environment. This has been confirmed on numerous
occasions by people who work at the grass roots level - actually
finding homes for cats.

I know trolls have trouble with facts, so I can't expect you to
understand them, but those are the facts and even a sick promotor of
animal abuse like you will just have to learn to live with them.

--
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 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

Bob Brenchley. wrote in message . ..
On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.


Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors. They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.


Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors. They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

On 6 Jan 2004 14:44:36 -0800, (Ray Ban) wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote in message . ..
On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification.

Not if it involves systematic cruelty.

It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

I'm glad to say that is NOT how it works.

--
Bob.

I think, therefore, I am... not related to you.

On 6 Jan 2004 14:44:36 -0800, (Ray Ban) wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote in message . ..
On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification.

Not if it involves systematic cruelty.

It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

I'm glad to say that is NOT how it works.

--
Bob.

I think, therefore, I am... not related to you.

On 06 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.


Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors.

You failed - dismally - because you refused to look at the basic needs
of the cats. By ignoring their basic needs you have become an abuser.

They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

You are either very deluded or very sick. I vote for sick.

--
Bob.

You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.

On 06 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.


Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors.

You failed - dismally - because you refused to look at the basic needs
of the cats. By ignoring their basic needs you have become an abuser.

They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

You are either very deluded or very sick. I vote for sick.

--
Bob.

You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.

Obviously, you didn't consult your pets whether they want to remain
purely indoor pets. You made the decision unilaterally. So, I argue
that you don't really care that they might suffer (mentally) as long
as you satisfy what you think is right, i.e., that they remain
indoors. You can be responsible and still let them outdoors by putting
them on a leash, in a backyard, if you have one, under supervision,
etc.


No, I didn't consult with them. I took a look at them in a cage in a section
set up in a local PetCo for adopting cats. I made an intelligent guess that
they would probably prefer to have the run of my small aprtment then staying in
the cage.

As far as the outdoor thing, I live in the city. I have a problem with people
who let their cats roam around in the alleys and gardens in the middle of the
blocks and between the rears of apartments.

If I didn't make it clear, I am sorry. Of course, anyone who has a backyard
and wishes to tether a cat to a long leash in the backyard, would not be
considered an irresponsible owner in my opinion. I object to allowing a pet to
roam free where the owner loses contact and control over the pet.