Outdoor cat poisoning - report back

"kitkat" wrote in message
om...
Ashley wrote:


He also commented that he was not impressed with the American method of
managing risks, ie keeping all cats indoors at all times.

This is the part where you lost me. I thought you were reporting back
about risks in NZ.

I was. But I also wanted to point out that the desire to maintain outdoor
access for cats is widespread, if not universal, among animal care
professionals here, and that while you guys have totally assimilated that
world view, most of the rest of the world hasn't!

Who cares what he thinks about our way of doing it.
Isn't your point that we do things differently than you guys and for good
reason on both ends?

Yeah, I think we all have good reasons for believing as we do. I suspect if
I were in the States my cats would have *less* access to the outdoors than
they do here, but they wouldn't be totally confined indoors. I understand
why people choose to do that if, say, they live in an apartment (in which
case they don't really have a choice!) or in an environment when there are
multiple risks to their cats. I would try bloody hard not to live in that
environment though.


I was starting to understand your position
better and to a degree still do, but clearly, as you have even
agreed...there *is* more of a risk here in the US...therefore people
choosing to keep cats indoors at all times makes sense.


For those people. And I respect their right to make those decisions. But
there's also been posts here from people in the State who choose to allow
their cats access to the outdoors. Depending on the level of risk in the
area I was in, I would make sure I had a secure outdoor area they could have
free access to, or would allow them out during the day.

"Brandy Alexandre" wrote in message
news:1112675199.8016a4976d13b4060ed22f2d6bc09934@t eranews...
Ashley wrote in

That is a very interesting article.


Yes, it is, isn't it? Most balanced examination of the pros and cons of both
views I've ever seen.

I wouldn't be surprised though
if people here clamp their hands over their ears and sing
"lalalalala" rather than *every* deign to *consider* a point of view
other than their own.

Indeed, it appears you are right.

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Ashley" wrote in message
...

They're also more likely to find themselves on mood-altering drugs and
have
their claws lopped off.

OK, now we've come full circle - you've just confirmed yourself a troll.
Have you *read* any of my other posts in this group??


If you've noticed, since she's been posting to this group (not just this
thread), she's never really contributed much useful information, she
basically just takes swipes at others' posts and criticizes people.

Phil

"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message
k.net...
In article 1112675199.8016a4976d13b4060ed22f2d6bc09934@teran ews,
"Brandy Alexandre" wrote:

http://www.fabcats.org/inorout.html




That is a very interesting article.

It was interesting, but notice not one study was cited for their
assertions. As I said, anyone can assert anything. So, until someone
posts a peer-reviewed study, this "article" worth the paper it's not
printed on.

And, no, that's not me covering my ears and going lalala. That's me
bringing healthy skepticism and not believing everything I read.


Hell, you only believe what you read in scientific journals anywhere, even
disbelieving otherwise authoritative sources? Healthy scepticism, is fine,
and sometimes it makes you spot a fraud a mile off, or even poke around
further to find out the credentials of the person/organisation doing the
asserting. Which you can do on this site :-)

For example, if you clicked on the "About fab" link, you'd find this

Cats are an endless source of fascination, but back in 1958 when the Feline
Advisory Bureau (FAB) was founded by Joan Judd, little was really known
about them or their veterinary needs. FAB gathered information from a
variety of sources and funded vets to specialise in feline care and so had a
major influence on early advances in veterinary treatment.

And if you look further, you'll find more.

"Ashley" wrote in message
...

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...


but are exposed to an increased risk of diabetes and obesity, not to
mention
anxiety disorders

Does your ignorance know no bounds? These are problems caused the *owner*
for not providing proper nutrition and environmental enrichment - *not* a
result of indoor living! Indoor cats simply require more effort,
creativity, imagination, and involvement - neither of which you seem to
possess or are cable of understanding.

In fact an outdoor cat lives a *more* stressful life than an indoor cat
due to territorial disputes, threats from other animals, people, cars,
environmental noises - stress leads to a constellation of physical and
psychological disorders. Or do you also live in a sterile, silent vacuum
all alone?

You don't know enough about cats to even know how much you don't know! IOW,
you're an babbling idiot!

"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
"Ashley" wrote:

I think that if they're going to make such flat, bold assertions, they
should cite their studies without being asked. Otherwise, frankly, it's
a Web site, which anyone can have.


But you'll find this on that particular website:

snip

Anyone would think vets with specialist knowledge of cats contributed to
it
... or something

That's all very nice, but it's not a citation for their assertions.

No. Because it's not a scientific paper. It's a public information site. As
I have stated, before, they have different conventions. Me, I get
information from both. And I'm sure you do, too.

I'm
sure we could find hundreds of equally or better qualified veterinarians
and behaviourists who could easily refute these assertions (Phil did
earlier, I believe -- e.g., Dr Dodman is a guru of cat behaviour, and
The Cat Who Cried for Help is an outstanding book).

What Phil did was post a selective list of vets he agrees who back up his
world view (but I noted that one of them simply said that cats will readily
fit into the human family, and he somehow took this as meaning they took
readily to indoor life or something. Don't know what he was doing with that
quote). The site you are debating is the site of a well-established and
respected cat care/research group with the input of many and, I might add,
very well-balanced viewpoints. The page that you are dismissing because it
did not have scientific cites put a couple of points in favour of indoor
cats so rationally, that I considered them whereas I had not before. I would
suggest that if you read that page with a truly open mind, it might actually
make you think a bit. That is, of course, just a suggestion :-)



Hodge came to me with behavioural problems. He is an indoor cat.
Therefore, the way your sources' assertions are worded, he's one of
those American cats with behavioural problems caused by being kept
indoors. What such glib assertions fail to take into account:

1. He had been front declawed at some point prior to his abandonment,
which I understand in and of itself can cause behavioural problems.

And which is a direct result of keeping cats indoors, no? Outdoor cats don't
get declawed. Certainly, I'd never heard of the procedure until I started
subscribing to newsgroups and was (and still am) aghast at the concept!

2. He is a dominant-aggressive cat; IIRC, Dr. Dodman calls this dominant
dog syndrome.

like my Tahi

3. Judging from his initial dominant-aggressive-fear response to almost
any gesture (even my walking, let alone trying to pet him), I suspect he
was abused.

sounds likely

4. There's a possibility he had feral traits.

(He's made a lot of progress, by the way. A lot.)


Excellent.

Without two statistically valid sets of kittens under identical
circumstances with indoor/outdoor being the only variable, and a control
group, a scientifically valid plan for the study, and peer review of the
resulting findings, there's no way to determine the source of
behavioural problems as "being kept indoors," as this site asserts. It's
anecdotal evidence.

you don't know that, you are choosing to assume that.

Veterinarians should know better to make such
assertions without evidence or, in the absence of it, without
qualifiers. ("It is our opinion that American cats," etc.)

I wouldn't take Hodge to them, that's for sure.


That would be because it's an organisation, not a veterinary practice ;-)

"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
"Ashley" wrote:

For example, if you clicked on the "About fab" link, you'd find this

Cats are an endless source of fascination, but back in 1958 when the
Feline
Advisory Bureau (FAB) was founded by Joan Judd, little was really known
about them or their veterinary needs. FAB gathered information from a
variety of sources and funded vets to specialise in feline care and so
had a
major influence on early advances in veterinary treatment.

Great marketing copy! Another unfounded assertion dressed up to sell.

OK, so you're obviously not going to read the site. You are perfectly
entitled to refuse to broaden your knowledge. But I'm perfectly entitled to
regard you as a closed mind, as a result.

"Ashley" wrote in message
...

"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
"Ashley" wrote:

I think that if they're going to make such flat, bold assertions,
they
should cite their studies without being asked. Otherwise, frankly,
it's
a Web site, which anyone can have.


But you'll find this on that particular website:

snip

Anyone would think vets with specialist knowledge of cats contributed
to
it
... or something

That's all very nice, but it's not a citation for their assertions.

No. Because it's not a scientific paper. It's a public information site.
As
I have stated, before, they have different conventions. Me, I get
information from both. And I'm sure you do, too.

I'm
sure we could find hundreds of equally or better qualified veterinarians
and behaviourists who could easily refute these assertions (Phil did
earlier, I believe -- e.g., Dr Dodman is a guru of cat behaviour, and
The Cat Who Cried for Help is an outstanding book).

What Phil did was post a selective list of vets he agrees who back up his
world view

That's exactly what you did you ****ing moron!

"Mathew Kagis" wrote in message
newscn4e.110900$KI2.70697@clgrps12...
OK, this little debate has become a little too nasty. I respect both
opinions, indoor & outdoor... Both have strong reasons behind them &
basically it comes down to personal choice.

My own choice is to let the cats outdoors... Only in the daytime. They
both
got gentle introductions to the outside world, short 10 min sessions with
me
a few times a week, building up to a leashed walk (much of which each of
them spent inside my vest) to TED.

Meghan: NZ does exist in an enviornmental bubble, it's an isolated set of
Islands... Almost all large mamals are imported & considered 'Noxious'.
The
population is low & even an 'urban' enviornment in NZ would be considered
'large town' to 'Small City' in the USA.

Catnipped: Relax darling.... I know your indoor cats will live forever &
you can say 'I told you so' when either Chablis or Muscat turn up dead of
a
car hit or a bear attack (although, Chablis has befreinded the local
skunks
& that makes it an even match in my book)... But some people are just not
going to agree with you. Think back to your 'American Bashing' thread....

As I've been typing this, Chablis has just come in from her sunset stroll,
she's fine. I mean, aside from the missing paw, chewed up tail, facial
lacerations & the jug of antifreeze she's sipping on, she's fine. Have
some
catnip & shake it off little girl.

Toung still firmly in cheek...

--
Mathew
Butler to 2 kittens: Chablis & Muscat
En Vino Veritas

Oh sweetie, I'm perfectly calm. To my knowledge I haven't called anyone any
names in these threads (and if I've just forgotten and I have, please point
it out so I can apologize). I *am* stating my opinions firmly because I
care very much about the welfare of cats - *all* cats. Even if it doesn't
worry you to let your cats out, it worries *me* for them!

On the other side of the argument, however, I have read
"obsessive-compulsive", "over-egged" (whatever the heck that means!),
"holier-than-thou pontificating", and in lots and lots of other words (which
I don't have the time now to google) the implication that Americans are
being overly risk conscious, unaware that the world exists outside of their
borders, and basically have our collective heads up our collective
posteriors (just another angle of America bashing when it gets down to it -
very condescending).

However, I am getting out of this debate. As I told Ashley, I'll only bang
my head against a brick wall until it hurts, not until I'm bloodied and
obviously everything I've had to say on this subject has fallen on deaf ears
(er, eyes). I will keep your kitties, and Ashley's kitties, in my prayers
and sincerely hope that I don't see anyone here again posting about how they
lost their precious cats to the dangers of the outside world.

Not to continue the argument, but just as a point of information... Megan,
Phil, or Mary (or whoever else may have been posting here for a long time,
since I've only been here for a little while)... give me just a guestimate
of how many people you've seen who posted here over the years saying
something like, "Fluffy has gone missing", or "Mittens was hit by a cat", or
"Muffy was mauled by a dog", or "Ajax has an abcess from a cat fight"? Ten,
twenty, thirty per year? Less? More?

Hugs,

CatNipped

In article ,
enlightened us with...

He also commented that he was not impressed with the American method of
managing risks, ie keeping all cats indoors at all times.

He might be if he actually lived here.

And some people accuse Americans of not being able to see the differences
between the countries...

Urban areas are not safe for cats to roam. In addition to cars, dogs, and
people, there are a lot of chemicals that are poisonous to cats that they can
ingest either by accident (cleaning it off fur, eating a poisoned prey
animal) or on purpose (we still have that antifreeze that is sweet tasting
and dangerous). Some people will poison cats (and dogs) ON PURPOSE.

We have very few rural areas safe enough for cats to roam unattended off
their own property. Many places they are not safe even on their own property
due to our natural predators (coyotes, bears, etc) and other wildlife
(racoons, possums, etc). Just two days ago I saw a possum larger than my
largest cat walking around outside in the bushes. While they don't go after
cats, if a cat goes after IT, it can do serious damage or even kill the cat.

We have raptor birds (eagles, owls, hawks) large enough to kill a small cat
in some places (including where I live).
Some areas have poisonous creatures such as snakes and scorpions. Some places
have alligators and/or crocs. Some places have bears. Some have wolves.

There's just a crapload of things that can happen to an unattended small
animal here (including small dogs), whether you're in the city or in the
middle of nowhere.

--
--
~kaeli~
Never say, "Oops!"; always say, "Ah, interesting!"
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace