Cat Pregnancy Questions?

Charlie Wilkes writes:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:08:57 -0700, Sherry wrote:

On Aug 17, 2:08 pm, Charlie Wilkes
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:36:11 -0400, Upscale wrote:

Drowning (or suffocation as it might be called) brings on
unconsciousness within a few seconds. An animal does not know to take
a big breath like a human might. Unconsciousness happens in less than
10 seconds

What is your source for this information? I don't believe it. A
neighbor of mine had a problem with feral cats nesting under his deck,
and he drowned some of them years ago. He said they would struggle for
a good 3 minutes, and after about the second or third one, he started
shooting them instead.

Charlie

I have a hard time believing it too. It came to our attention that a
animal control in a neighboring
town was trapping skunks, and drowning them in the traps. I lobbied hard
over this. I don't care if
they *are* skunks, I thought it was a terrible, frightening, and
inhumane way to die.

Sherry

Mark Twain said this: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into
trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

It's easy enough to research topics like this on the web and find out
what the experts think. The American Veterinary Medical Association's
Guidelines on Euthanasia (June 2007) can be found he

http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_we...euthanasia.pdf

Drowning is listed in "Appendix 4 - Some Unacceptable Agents and Methods
of Euthanasia" with the comment, "Drowning is not a form of euthanasia
and is inhumane."

Note that those are guidelines for vets.

In a veterinary context there are many methods available that bring
on sudden death or allow for the animal to be sedated first.

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
Drowning is listed in "Appendix 4 - Some Unacceptable Agents and Methods
of Euthanasia" with the comment, "Drowning is not a form of euthanasia
and is inhumane."

Note that those are guidelines for vets.

In a veterinary context there are many methods available that bring
on sudden death or allow for the animal to be sedated first.

Thank you. I never said that there weren't easier and more acceptable
methods of euthanasia. All I was trying to get across was that when an
animal was in extreme agony and distress and the more accepted methods of
putting an animal down were not immediately available, then I consider it
more humane to use a fairly quick method to kill the animal. Despite the
squeamishness of some of the respondents in this conversation, drowning is a
relatively quick method.

As to the person that was requesting my source for this information, my
source works in the veterinary industry, but has absolutely no intent on
becoming personally involved in this conversation. If that's not good enough
for you, then feel perfectly free to research the topic yourself and present
your information to the contrary. (with your sources for that information of
course)

On 19 Aug, 08:41, "Upscale" wrote:
"Dan Espen" wrote in message
Drowning is listed in "Appendix 4 - Some Unacceptable Agents and Methods
of Euthanasia" with the comment, "Drowning is not a form of euthanasia
and is inhumane."

Note that those are guidelines for vets.

In a veterinary context there are many methods available that bring
on sudden death or allow for the animal to be sedated first.

Thank you. I never said that there weren't easier and more acceptable
methods of euthanasia. All I was trying to get across was that when an
animal was in extreme agony and distress and the more accepted methods of
putting an animal down were not immediately available, then I consider it
more humane to use a fairly quick method to kill the animal. Despite the
squeamishness of some of the respondents in this conversation, drowning is a
relatively quick method.

As to the person that was requesting my source for this information, my
source works in the veterinary industry, but has absolutely no intent on
becoming personally involved in this conversation. If that's not good enough
for you, then feel perfectly free to research the topic yourself and present
your information to the contrary. (with your sources for that information of
course)

If that's not good enough
for you, then feel perfectly free to research the topic yourself and present
your information to the contrary. (with your sources for that information of
course)

I believe he did, in appendix 4, if you wish to read it. If you follow
the link, you will see his findings in the research he went to the
trouble of producing.

It would seem that I am one of those too squeamish to stick a kittens
head in a bucket of water, & remain holding it there until the poor
creatures struggles ceased.

Perhaps you are right? I just don't have the stomach or confidence to
try, for fear that I would be putting the poor kitten through further
distress. You will understand what I mean when you take a look at the
veterinary surgeons findings.
Sheelagh"o"

"Sheelagh o" wrote in message

I believe he did, in appendix 4, if you wish to read it. If you follow
the link, you will see his findings in the research he went to the
trouble of producing.

And if *you* had read further, you'd have seen Dan mention that those
findings were for vets. Since we're not vets, that doesn't leave the much
easier option of a sedative and then a shot to kill the kitten.

Perhaps you are right? I just don't have the stomach or confidence to
try, for fear that I would be putting the poor kitten through further
distress. You will understand what I mean when you take a look at the
veterinary surgeons findings.

Then you'd be actively forcing the kitten to live and suffer a longer period
until you found some method that was less squeamish for you to use.
Personally, I think that's pretty selfish.

Tell me Sheelagh, if you had your guts ripped out and you were screaming in
agony with nothing left for you to scream for quite a few minutes more until
you slowly bled to death, would you accept being suffocated into
unconsciousness within several seconds? I don't know about you, but I sure
would.

"Sheelagh o" wrote in message
Perhaps you are right? I just don't have the stomach or confidence to
try, for fear that I would be putting the poor kitten through further
distress.

In all honesty, I think we both have an animal's welfare at heart, just that
we might take different routes to do something about it. Say what you want,
I'm finished with this thread.

Perhaps you are right? I just don't have the stomach or confidence to
try, for fear that I would be putting the poor kitten through further
distress. You will understand what I mean when you take a look at the
veterinary surgeons findings.
Sheelagh"o"


For what it's worth....(I have been following this thread) I am 72 years
old. (Yesterday was my birthday) When I was about 30, I drowned a mouse by
holding it under water. (We had an infestation of mice, and I caught this
one without a trap, so I drowned it.) That was 42 years ago.....I will never
forget it, and I have never drowned anything else since.

The point? - Just be advised that some of the things you might do when you
are 30 will not sit well with you when you are older, so think well before
you act.......

William Graham wrote:
Perhaps you are right? I just don't have the stomach or confidence to
try, for fear that I would be putting the poor kitten through further
distress. You will understand what I mean when you take a look at the
veterinary surgeons findings.
Sheelagh"o"

For what it's worth....(I have been following this thread) I am 72 years
old. (Yesterday was my birthday) When I was about 30, I drowned a mouse by
holding it under water. (We had an infestation of mice, and I caught this
one without a trap, so I drowned it.) That was 42 years ago.....I will never
forget it, and I have never drowned anything else since.

The point? - Just be advised that some of the things you might do when you
are 30 will not sit well with you when you are older, so think well before
you act.......


Many happy returns to you William, & I hope that you had a very happy
birthday?

I have no intention of continuing an argument here either. I just felt it was
a method I didn't feel comfortable with, *personally*.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you had to say though William.
You do see things differently as you get older.

I can never forget the sight of what I saw, & it doesn't get easier as the
years pass. It gets harder to understand. Why would one wait for kittens to
get to around 6 weeks of age, before even considering dealing with the issue?
I just felt it was barbaric, because of the sight of what I saw.

I guess, Sadly I will never never get to the answer to that one.
Sheelagh "o"

--
Sheelagh "o"

Message posted via http://www.catkb.com

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 05:22:08 -0700, Sheelagh o wrote:

On 19 Aug, 08:41, "Upscale" wrote:

If that's not good enough
for you, then feel perfectly free to research the topic yourself and
present your information to the contrary. (with your sources for that
information of course)

I believe he did, in appendix 4, if you wish to read it. If you follow
the link, you will see his findings in the research he went to the
trouble of producing.

I spent about 45 minutes on this and chose the most authoritative source
among many. I also discovered that drowning animals is against the law
in quite a few jurisdictions, and I ran across a news article about a
couple in Arizona who were arrested earlier this month for "euthanizing"
their cat in this manner... www.ajnews.com

Charlie

On 19 Aug, 20:28, Charlie Wilkes
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 05:22:08 -0700, Sheelagh o wrote:
On 19 Aug, 08:41, "Upscale" wrote:

If that's not good enough
for you, then feel perfectly free to research the topic yourself and
present your information to the contrary. (with your sources for that
information of course)

I believe he did, in appendix 4, if you wish to read it. If you follow
the link, you will see his findings in the research he went to the
trouble of producing.

I spent about 45 minutes on this and chose the most authoritative source
among many. I also discovered that drowning animals is against the law
in quite a few jurisdictions, and I ran across a news article about a
couple in Arizona who were arrested earlier this month for "euthanizing"
their cat in this manner...www.ajnews.com

Charlie

and I ran across a news article about a
couple in Arizona who were arrested earlier this month for "euthanizing"
their cat in this manner...www.ajnews.com

It, is probably almost stuck up my nose,but I can't seem to locate
it.
Is it on a different page Charlie?
Sheelagh"o"

"Sheelagh o" wrote in message

I spent about 45 minutes on this and chose the most authoritative source
among many. I also discovered that drowning animals is against the law
in quite a few jurisdictions, and I ran across a news article about a
couple in Arizona who were arrested earlier this month for "euthanizing"
their cat in this manner...www.ajnews.com

It, is probably almost stuck up my nose,but I can't seem to locate
it.
Is it on a different page Charlie?
Sheelagh"o"

I have one more comment on this. These examples of euthanizing and arrests
and all that stuff. Were these cats severely injured when they were drowned
or were they for the most part healthy cats? That's what we're talking
about, euthanizing a severely injured cat. If someone killed a cat for
another reason, then that has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.
*When* you find that link, research under what circumstances these cats were
euthanized. *THEN* go and find me examples of someone being convicted for
drowning a severely injured kitty. Until you can do that, you or Charlie or
whoever wants to comment have no rebuttal to what I've been talking about.