A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 27th 06, 07:34 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)

I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a
recent article on euthanasia in the Nacogdoches (TX) Daily Sentinel. The
animal shelter has a staff who work very hard to find homes for animals that
are under their care. Even so, statistics for 2005 show that they euthanized
*73 percent* of the animals that were left at the shelter (and that is
actually *less* than the rate of euthanasia in many communities).

The article actually concentrated on the psychological toll that is taken on
shelter workers who must carry out this horrible (but necessary) task --
something that I think we seldom think about. Here is one excerpt from the
article: "Shocking? Imagine how shelter director Gwen Gillespie feels. She
and one other shelter employee are responsible for euthanizing hundreds of
dogs and cats each month - many of which were healthy, loving animals -
bagging them and depositing them in the city landfill. Gillespie's
unfortunate job illuminates another aspect of massive animal euthanasia that
remains largely hidden from public view - the disturbing psychological toll
that killing so many healthy animals takes on the shelter personnel who
perform the deed." Further, the article notes that an American Veterinary
Medical Association's panel on euthanasia warned in 2000 that "constant
exposure to, or participation in, euthanasia procedures can cause a
psychologic state characterized by a strong sense of work dissatisfaction
and alienation." Other studies "have found that people who perform animal
euthanasias are an 'at-risk' population, at-risk for a variety of
psychological, emotional and physical ailments such as high blood pressure,
ulcers, unresolved grief, depression and even suicide."

So, failure to spay and neuter -- which has led to an extreme overpopulation
of cats and dogs -- brings tragedy not only to our four-legged friends but
also to people who must look at wonderful, healthy animals and know that
most of them are doomed. I know I am "preaching to the church choir" here
because most of the contributors to this newsgroup already are aware of the
necessity to spay and neuter, but I hope this will motivate some of you to
encourage your neighbors to also think about the problem.

You can read the full article he
http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/co...NDSanimal.html

MaryL




  #2  
Old January 27th 06, 04:47 PM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)

On 2006-01-27, MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a


I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens.
There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really
isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of
the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One
intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put
your money on spaying queens, first.

--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
  #3  
Old January 27th 06, 06:14 PM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)

"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-01-27, MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought
the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a


I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens.
There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really
isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of
the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One
intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put
your money on spaying queens, first.


This makes no sense - you seem to be arguing against your point. If one
intact tom can service many queens then it would be more cost effective to
neuter the tom to keep him from impregnating many queens (and in actuality
is, since toms costs less to neuter than queens to spay). You are
preventing "many" pregnancies by neutering "one" tom. Yes, there are other
intact toms who will impregnate queens if you neuter only one, but there are
also other queens who will be impregnated if you spay only one queen - that
part of the argument is moot.

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/




--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.



  #4  
Old January 27th 06, 09:56 PM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)


"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-01-27, MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his

cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought
the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a


I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens.
There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really
isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of
the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One
intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put
your money on spaying queens, first.


This makes no sense - you seem to be arguing against your point. If one
intact tom can service many queens then it would be more cost effective to
neuter the tom to keep him from impregnating many queens (and in actuality
is, since toms costs less to neuter than queens to spay). You are
preventing "many" pregnancies by neutering "one" tom. Yes, there are

other
intact toms who will impregnate queens if you neuter only one, but there

are
also other queens who will be impregnated if you spay only one queen -

that
part of the argument is moot.
Hugs,

CatNipped


It makes no sense the way you phrased it
But if you have a colony of 10 males and 10 females and you trap and neuter
9 males, all 10 femles will get pregnant from the one male you didn't get.
In fact I'll bet if you neuter all 10 males the females will all still get
pregnant from a roaming tom that hears 10 females in heat.
You need to spay as many females as possible to keep them from making
kittens.
Unfortunately I don't know how to trap just females so I fix what ever winds
up in the trap.
ron


  #5  
Old January 27th 06, 11:00 PM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)


"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-01-27, MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought
the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a


I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens.
There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really
isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of
the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One
intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put
your money on spaying queens, first.

--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.


Please note that I said "spay and neuter." I referred to my message to
someone in anecdotes who had a male cat, but I believe that as many *cats*
as possible -- regardless of gender -- should be spayed or neutered. That
is the only way cat population will ever be controlled, and it is also
better for their health.

MaryL


  #6  
Old January 28th 06, 12:17 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)


"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-01-27, MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his

cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought
the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a


I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens.
There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really
isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of
the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One
intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put
your money on spaying queens, first.


This makes no sense - you seem to be arguing against your point. If one
intact tom can service many queens then it would be more cost effective to
neuter the tom to keep him from impregnating many queens


Actually, queens determine population- not toms. For example:

100 queens + 100 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 50 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 10 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 1 tom = 100 litters
100 toms + 50 queens = 50 litters
100 toms + 1 queen = 1 litter

The best solution is neuter all the cats. If you can't, neuter the queens.
It will have more of an affect on population control and they will derive
more health benefits. Males can track a cycling queen miles away. So
neutering local females will control the local population.

Phil











  #7  
Old January 28th 06, 12:59 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)

"Phil P." wrote in message
ink.net...

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-01-27, MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his

cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought
the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a

I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens.
There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really
isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of
the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One
intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put
your money on spaying queens, first.


This makes no sense - you seem to be arguing against your point. If one
intact tom can service many queens then it would be more cost effective
to
neuter the tom to keep him from impregnating many queens


Actually, queens determine population- not toms. For example:

100 queens + 100 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 50 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 10 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 1 tom = 100 litters
100 toms + 50 queens = 50 litters
100 toms + 1 queen = 1 litter

The best solution is neuter all the cats. If you can't, neuter the
queens.
It will have more of an affect on population control and they will derive
more health benefits. Males can track a cycling queen miles away. So
neutering local females will control the local population.

Phil


I understand that, but also know that

100 queens + 1 *NEUTERED* (former) tom = 0 litters

But what it comes down to is that until *all* cats in a colony are desexed
there is a chance of pregnancy either in that colony or in a neighboring
colony. Spaying your queens and ignoring the toms is only moving the
problem into another neighborhood.

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



  #8  
Old January 28th 06, 01:36 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)


"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Phil P." wrote in message
ink.net...

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-01-27, MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his

cat
neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he

thought
the
cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from

a

I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens.
There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really
isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of
the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One
intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put
your money on spaying queens, first.

This makes no sense - you seem to be arguing against your point. If

one
intact tom can service many queens then it would be more cost effective
to
neuter the tom to keep him from impregnating many queens


Actually, queens determine population- not toms. For example:

100 queens + 100 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 50 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 10 toms = 100 litters
100 queens + 1 tom = 100 litters
100 toms + 50 queens = 50 litters
100 toms + 1 queen = 1 litter

The best solution is neuter all the cats. If you can't, neuter the
queens.
It will have more of an affect on population control and they will

derive
more health benefits. Males can track a cycling queen miles away. So
neutering local females will control the local population.

Phil


I understand that, but also know that

100 queens + 1 *NEUTERED* (former) tom = 0 litters


It doesn't work that way in real life. If a cycling queen can't find mates
in her colony, she'll roam until she does. IOW, where there's a cycling
queen, you'll find a tom.


But what it comes down to is that until *all* cats in a colony are desexed
there is a chance of pregnancy either in that colony or in a neighboring
colony. Spaying your queens and ignoring the toms is only moving the
problem into another neighborhood.


I didn't say ignore the toms. This is hypothetical either/or. I said
neutering the females will have a greater effect on the population than
neutering males-- which it does. If all the females in one colony are
neutered, intact strays and toms from another colony can't do any damage.
Also, don't forget free roaming owned toms.. They're the wild cards.

Even though you can neuter 2 or 3 males for the same cost of neutering 1
female, that one neutered female will have a greater effect on the
population than the 2 or 3 neutered males.

Urine from a cycling female makes excellent bait for trapping toms from all
over the place and toms you've never seen before.

Phil



  #9  
Old January 30th 06, 02:51 PM posted to rec.pets.cats.health+behav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)


"CatNipped" wrote in message
...

I understand that, but also know that

100 queens + 1 *NEUTERED* (former) tom = 0 litters
CatNipped


I a closed, fenced in colony, yes.
In the real world nature will find a way.
ron


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Animal Planet Heroes Should Cover No-Kills Cat Protector Cat health & behaviour 80 January 20th 06 10:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.