What Price For Kitty?

"John Kimmel" wrote in message
...
What if it wasn't "your" cat?

I don't know. I tend to fall in love with every cat I meet.


I have two cats of my own, but I've spent
hundreds of dollars on an assortment of stray cats who've shown up on my
doorstep. I had an $800 vet bill for one of "my" feral cats, I've spent
hundreds on a stray kitten with a persistent URI, and hundreds more on a
stray (non-feral) cat with struvite crystals. Both of them have moved
in with me, neither of my "real" cats are happy about it.

You're a good man.

One of my ferals, a formerly beautiful long haired lynx point, comes up
to me to be petted, but only if I don't look at him, and only if he
can't see my hand coming for him. He's getting pretty matted now,
there's not much I can do about it--except spend a lot of money on him,
too. He's been neutered, that was his only visit to a vet. I only take
the manageable strays to the vet, except in an emergency. There is no
limit to how much I could spend trying to save cats, except for the
limits I make myself. Still, I worry that I might be becoming a "cat
collector".

Honestly? Then you might have a problem.


I love my cats, I love my strays, I particularly love my most unlovable
ferals, but I can't cripple myself for a single cat. At some point,
saving one cat might mean losing all the others. Why do I even bother
at all when my efforts are insignificant compared to the need? I don't
have an answer. Usually I don't think about it, I just pull out Mr.
Plastic.

You're a good man.

I just take what I have and pay the bills and divvy the rest up
among the nieces and nephews, cats, and other loved ones.
Some little treats for me, and I am happy.

To answer the real question you are asking: I have to keep my
distance most times--and I mean consciously withdraw--when
I see animals in need. There is only so much I can do, and I
know it. It is not because I want to use my money for other
things, it is because I have to be sure I can pay my bills. It is
the same with my sisters' children: my impulse is to give them
everything. They are good kids--they need things and they
do not expect anything.



Mary wrote:



I would take out a second mortgage on my house for my cats.
Or an equity loan. And I would ask relatives for money if need be--
which is something I have done maybe twice in my life. I would ask
friends for money, something I have never done. I would sell
all my collectables to pay for my cats' health needs. I would do
everything I could, as long as I was not, as you say, Pam, putting them
through hell when they did not have a good chance at a decent
recovery. I am their caretaker, and it is my responsibility to not
only get them health care but also to see to it that they do not
suffer unnecessarily.




--
J Kimmel

www.metalinnovations.com

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.

"Phil P." wrote in message
news

"Glarb" wrote in message
...
"-L." wrote in message
Absolutely. But I truly think if one cannot afford "adequate" pet
care, one shouldn't have a pet. I didn't get a pet until I made well
over $40K/year (1990), just for that reason.

Then take a wild guess as to how many pets would be without homes if
financial criteria for owning them were established. Do you have any
idea
how many pets would have to be put down?


Emotional blackmail only works on the weak-spirited and weak-minded.

How about you taking a wild guess as to how many cats would live miserable
lives and suffer long painful deaths that could have been prevented had
their owners not been either too cheap or just couldn't afford adequate
environmental enrichment and veterinary care.

Your problem is that you view cats as items you own rather than living,
feeling, thinking individuals. If you didn't, you wouldn't put a price on
their lives.

Your question: "what is your true limit?" is asinine because what you're
really saying is "how much do you love your cat in terms of dollars and
cents." Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his
cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you see the
utter
stupidity of your question?



I agree completely, Phil. I can't understand people even thinking in
this way, but I guess it is good to know that they do. We can't live
in total denial, can we? Ugh. It's the cat as object again.

"Dom" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm not replying to anyone in particular here (which is a good thing,
considering I'm not quite sure how to quote in google right now).

Hee!

I think both these questions are really asking the same thing. Is the
pet's benefit to the well-being of a person more important than the
pet's right to life? Cause I have to say...the pet really doesn't
why it doesn't receive needed medical care. It doesn't matter if
you can't pay because you're unemployed or you won't pay because
you really want a fourth car. Most people in this thread are judging
imaginary situations based on the moral reasoning given for a choice.
If a cat requires a thousand dollar surgery but the owner is on food
stamps, would putting the cat to sleep be a bad choice? What if the
owner opted to put the cat down because the kids really wanted a
Gamecube? Would that be a bad decision?

[...]
So, no, I don't believe people who can't afford it should own pets.
What the pet stands to lose is a hell of a lot more than what the
person could. I can't imagine not having pets. They give love and
warmth and humor and basically make every day just that much brighter.
But I wouldn't die without them. They would die if I couldn't pay
for their care. I also don't believe a person who doesn't want to
pay for their pet should have them. And I don't think there's all
that much of a difference between the two. And I don't think it's
just a matter of different views and that everyone has to decide on
their own how much they'd be willing to give. I know we're all
supposed to be tolerant and yadda yadda yadda. That's just rhetoric
too. That's like saying I can't quite understand a person's
decision to refuse a blood transfusion for a seven-year-old boy but I
support their right to do so. I understand it...I truly and honestly
do. But I sure as hell don't support it and I don't feel any need
to.


Perfectly lovely Sethran. I guess that means that I agree with you.
Nice head you got there to go with that good heart.

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I agree with L. here. While flaming is a nice temporary release,
actual
discussion is much better for sharing information and possibly
changing
someone's mind.

One can disagree with the sentiment and not resort to personally
attacking the person. That's all I'm saying. Unfortunately the latter
seems to be many people's first line of offense. It's infantile
behavior, at best.


Wussy wussy wussy, nyah nyah nyaaaaaahhhhh!





:0)

Glarb wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
At least we have safeguards in place for kids, though.

You think so? It's an old joke, but it really is easier to have a
kid than
to get a pet sometimes. I got my cat from a shelter, and they really
did
the 20 questions thing on me to make sure I was fit. They don't do
that
with children.

When you adopt they do - and more.


I love my cat. Don't get me wrong. Every time he has gotten sick
over the
years, I have taken care of him. But after reading some stories
about the
lengths people go to in keeping cats alive, I really got to thinking
about
this. I hope I never do.

Glarb

Some people go far too far, IMO - others don't do enough. But that's
just the thing - one person's "not enough" could be another's "too
much". Hell, I'm struggling with this same issue with regard to my own
health right now. I have a condition that is rare, where there aretwo
treatment options, neither of which are all that great. It's really
hard to be educated and try to make the "right" decision - even when
the patient is yourself.

-L.

wrote:
On 14 Feb 2005 20:04:24 -0800, "-L." wrote:

IMO - that if one can't afford adequate vet care, one
shouldn't have a pet, just as I feel if one cannot afford adequate
medical care, one really shouldn't be having children.


I can't pass on this one. So following the syllogism then, people
who
can't afford adequate vet care TO YOUR STANDARDS, should not have
pets,

*Adequate* veterinary care. Exams, vaccines, flea meds, treatment fior
routine conditions. Most vets agree on a "standard" of adequate
veterinary care. We have laws that enforce *adequate* veterinary care.



And people who cannot foresee that they might have a child with some
horrific life long disability, should not participate in sex???

What a sad and barren (pun intended) world this would be. And what
about airplanes and cars, SOMETIMES they crash...

I don't know where you came up with this from what I posted...

-L.

Phil P. wrote:
snip
Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his
cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you see
the utter
stupidity of your question?

I don't think it's a stupid question - merely a hypothetical one. We
all have limits - he/she is just asking - "Do you know what your's is?"
I don't know why equating love with spending money entered the
equation.

-L.

wrote:
You are practicing 'backwards' thinking here. Why blame pet owners?

Because it is *their* responsibility.


Why not instead blame VETS and animal organizations for not doing
more
and properly organized pro bono/sliding scale work???

I don't know where you live but in the areas where I have worked in
animal welfare, the organizations spend a lot, relatively, on vet care
for the indigent. The vet I worked for spayed at cost, and often did
no-cost spays as part of a community program.




And obviously, you've never lived on a farm!!! As a child I can
guarantee you our 'barn cats' had absolutely NO vet care, yet each
was
loved dearly (though they never set foot inside; homes were for
people, barns were for animals!), healthy, HAPPY lives. Natural
selection was at work here...

Relatively short lives, usually. Comparing barn cats or feral cats to
pets is irrelevant.



Only the 'prize' breeding stock had any vet care, and that was only
if
they were 'off their feed'.

I think sometimes 'perspective' is lost in these 'flames'.

I don't think Kelly "flamed" anyone. In fact, with few exceptions, the
discussion has been civil.

The
question should be: in what way can I, as an individual, help cats,
(and not just MY cats!).

I agree - but not many people see any responsibility for anything
beyond themselves.



Instead of trying to decide WHO can have pets, and the criteria for
same, why not 'adopt' a local low income person and help w/costs or
transit for a year!!!

I have done similar in the past - paid for procedures for animals that
were slated to be euthanized because of lack of funds. But what
happens "next time"? Are we postponing the inevitable? That's Kelly's
quandry, I think.



Or volunteer 4 hrs a month (or the ebullient in
money) to the agency of your choice. Or both! Now that would be
helping both people and cats!!!

What makes you think that many of us don't do that already? It is
*because* I work in these situations that I vehemently feel that people
who cannot afford *adequate* vet care shouldn't have pets. "Adequate"
vet care is easily defined - we have laws that require it. Not
treating an animal who needs medical attention is neglect and
punishable by law, as is not sheltering or feeding an animal. Adequate
Vet care is as essential as food and water.


I have a 'pal' that sends via UPS a case (48 cans) of Trader Joe's
cat
tuna every month to me, and I can't begin to tell you what a blessing
that is!!!

I in turn, volunteered months ago to do at home computer stuff for
our
local SPAN group (I've also done the same, only years ago, for a
local
wetlands that I live by, where strays are dumped and distemper runs
rampant).

That's great!

Sorry to hear about your kitty's botched spay - it's pretty uncommon
IME. Hope it is resolved soon.

-L.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:00:04 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
] wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Jim Lawton

In the UK we have this organisation - do you not in the states?

http://www.pdsa.org.uk

In Massachusetts, the MSPCA has a similar program called
"The Pet Care Assistance Fund" to help people who truly can't afford
medical care for their pets.
My wife and I make a donation every year and have even left a
substantial part of our assets to the fund in our Will.
And for those of you who feel that someone with limited funds does
not deserve to have a pet, check out
http://www.mspca.org/site/pp.asp?c=gtIUK4OSG&b=126332
then click on "Update on Nicky".
Then tell me......
Do you think "Joseph Burke" does not deserve to have a cat?

"On December 16, 2004, Joseph Burke, an 83 year-old Somerville resident,
demonstrated the profound bond between a man and his pet when he walked eight
hours in the bitter cold seeking veterinary care for his ailing cat, Nicky"

What an excellent story - and what a nice outcome.

I hope no-one's saying the poor don't deserve pets. Having money certainly
doesn't make you "deserving". If those with loads of money put some of it into
free clinics for those without, that would deserve praise, and would be good for
animals too. And it would make the OP's question unnecessary.

J

wrote:
Who is 'we' that have laws. 'We' have 'abuse' and minimum care laws
here. No "We have laws that enforce *adequate* veterinary care"

Could you be specific as to EXACT laws and where they apply???

You live in the US - right? You are posting from cox.net...

If you fail to provide adequate medical care to your animals you can be
arrested for animal neglect and possibly abuse, depending on the
situation. "Minimum care" includes adequate veterinary care.

-L.