Getting ready for a new aby kitten in Chicago-advice on vets

(-L.) wrote:

If it looks, acts, walks and smells purebred, it's purebred enough to
have come from purebred parents or parentage.

Not in my opinion. Plenty of cats may look like a Siamese or a British
shorthair, but they are not purebred and did not come from any breeder. Some
characteristics of a particular breed can arise naturally in mixed breed cats,
after all. It doesn't mean there was ever a purebred cat in the cat's
background.

Some come in with
pedigrees, as well.

If from a legimitate registry, I would consider those purebred then.

If there's any doubt, it is listed was listed as
a "breed-mix", in the shelters I worked at.

I'm not saying they aren't, just wondering
how your shelter determines that. The reason I ask is because if I type in
a
certain breed at petfinders.com, I can see that none of the cats listed are
actually that breed,

People list them as such hoping someone interested in the breed will
look at them and fall in love. Not an uncommon tactic.

I know, but those cats did not come from any breeder.

and I don't even have a very educated eye. I have a friend
who works in a breed rescue, and it's pretty much the same thing--most of
the
time the cats in question turn out to be mixed breed.

Many are, but for others it doesn't take a brain scientist to figure
out that one parent, at least, was purebred. Just another way our
breeder friends are contributing to the problem.

As I said, I don't really believe that. I've seen plenty of cats with white
feet that never had a Birman, Ragdoll or Snowshoe cat in their background.
That's because white feet can show up naturally. The Birman rescue, for
example, uses CFA judges and breeders to determine whether a cat is really a
purebred, pedigreed Birman, using related pedigree papers. This way they can
trace the Birman back to the breeder. While to many people a particular cat may
look just like a true Birman, the rescue can tell that it's not.

So to assume that just because a cat looks like a certain breed of cat it must
have come from a breeder at some point is false.

wrote:

Think of it this way. Even if you get rid of purebred cats, using som eone
else's statistic posted here, you've gotten rid of maybe 25% of the
problem?

No, not even that. If you magically rid the world of purebred cats tomorrow, it
wouldn't even make a dent in the overpopulation problem. Only three percent of
owned cats in the U.S. are purebred (but 25% of dogs are purebred--perhaps
that's where that figure comes from). Compare that to the 40% of the cat
population that are unowned--strays and ferals, of which very few are neutered.
Magically neuter all these cats tomorrow, or even most of them, and in a short
time you will actually start seeing a deficit of cats--more people wanting cats
than there are cats available.
Or consider the some 16 percent of owned female cats that are allowed to have
one litter before they are spayed.

Other people still have cats that are breeding because they think
kittens are cute and want a kitten from their cat, because they wanjt to
teach the joys of life, because they don't want to pay the money to spay,
becauset hey think neutering is a horrible thing to do to a cat, because
they insist that causet he cat is indoors it will never get out and have
an accident, because they just don't care - it's a cat it will do what it
wants, I just leave food out for it.

One study showed that 94 percent of litters of kittens born each year are
accidental.

I'm saying maybe efforts should be spent more in dealing with these people
than with the ones who are breeding because tehy do care about their breed
and want to improve it (who I will admit are pretty rare which is why I
don't think they are contributing much at all to the problem).

So you confirm that the lives of those cats are'nt important to you.
Nope, they just don't matter. How sad is that. Apparently it hasn't
occured to you that saving lives and doing the other things you listed
are NOT mutually exclusive.

Or just maybe you and I disagree about what causes the problem. You know,
you can agree on one thing but disagree about how to go about it. No,
you'd rather just insult me I suppose. I'm insulted. Happy?

If it makes you feel better, yes, cats lives are important to me. But I'm
not going to save them all (and neither are you no matter how much effort
you put into it). But I am going to say I'll put my efforts where It hink
they will have teh most impact rather than worrying about something that
doesn't have as much impact. And, I think in general we'd mostly agree on
who should not breed, just there would be a few you would disagree because
you don't want any breeding and I think that if some one is willing to
take responsibility for every life they bring out, willing to breed for
health and personality along with standard, willing to screen out people
who want a pet who shouldn't is not a bad thing.

Basically, I find most people not good breeders. There is one breeder
(black labs) at my vet that I'd actually endorse. And there's several I
would totally not endorse.

I know mostly good breeders, but I wouldn't maintain an acquaintance with a bad
one anyway. Besides, mostly I meet and talk to breeders at cat shows, and BYB's
don't show. I wonder if your experience may be more common with dogs, if only
because there are so many more breeders of dogs than of cats.

One I think is a good person but I really don't think she puts in the
right efforts (pixie bob breeder). I truly do think she cares, she seems
to care about taking in cats she finds (not breeding them, she only breeds
her pixie bobs) and kittens left on doorsteps. But I just don't think
she's a good breeder and I wouldn't recomend her. One totally
disgusts me because it seems she just wants to breed it if it looks
Dalmation (she at one point wanted to take in a dog that needed a home
just to breed him, no worries about what problems he might bring in the
breed. And I believe she was planning on adopting him to breed, then
finding a home for him elsewhere. And all the time she has her dogs up
for adoption saying she doesn't have time for them.. ??!!!!!!!).

There are good and bad in everything, I'm sure. I think with less popular
breeds, the breeders are sort of self-policing, and condemn those who are less
than ethical. So I would be more suspicious of those breeders who aren't
members of the breed groups--although I'm sure it depends on who is in the
group.

wrote:

Think of it this way. Even if you get rid of purebred cats, using som eone
else's statistic posted here, you've gotten rid of maybe 25% of the
problem?

No, not even that. If you magically rid the world of purebred cats tomorrow, it
wouldn't even make a dent in the overpopulation problem. Only three percent of
owned cats in the U.S. are purebred (but 25% of dogs are purebred--perhaps
that's where that figure comes from). Compare that to the 40% of the cat
population that are unowned--strays and ferals, of which very few are neutered.
Magically neuter all these cats tomorrow, or even most of them, and in a short
time you will actually start seeing a deficit of cats--more people wanting cats
than there are cats available.
Or consider the some 16 percent of owned female cats that are allowed to have
one litter before they are spayed.

Other people still have cats that are breeding because they think
kittens are cute and want a kitten from their cat, because they wanjt to
teach the joys of life, because they don't want to pay the money to spay,
becauset hey think neutering is a horrible thing to do to a cat, because
they insist that causet he cat is indoors it will never get out and have
an accident, because they just don't care - it's a cat it will do what it
wants, I just leave food out for it.

One study showed that 94 percent of litters of kittens born each year are
accidental.

I'm saying maybe efforts should be spent more in dealing with these people
than with the ones who are breeding because tehy do care about their breed
and want to improve it (who I will admit are pretty rare which is why I
don't think they are contributing much at all to the problem).

So you confirm that the lives of those cats are'nt important to you.
Nope, they just don't matter. How sad is that. Apparently it hasn't
occured to you that saving lives and doing the other things you listed
are NOT mutually exclusive.

Or just maybe you and I disagree about what causes the problem. You know,
you can agree on one thing but disagree about how to go about it. No,
you'd rather just insult me I suppose. I'm insulted. Happy?

If it makes you feel better, yes, cats lives are important to me. But I'm
not going to save them all (and neither are you no matter how much effort
you put into it). But I am going to say I'll put my efforts where It hink
they will have teh most impact rather than worrying about something that
doesn't have as much impact. And, I think in general we'd mostly agree on
who should not breed, just there would be a few you would disagree because
you don't want any breeding and I think that if some one is willing to
take responsibility for every life they bring out, willing to breed for
health and personality along with standard, willing to screen out people
who want a pet who shouldn't is not a bad thing.

Basically, I find most people not good breeders. There is one breeder
(black labs) at my vet that I'd actually endorse. And there's several I
would totally not endorse.

I know mostly good breeders, but I wouldn't maintain an acquaintance with a bad
one anyway. Besides, mostly I meet and talk to breeders at cat shows, and BYB's
don't show. I wonder if your experience may be more common with dogs, if only
because there are so many more breeders of dogs than of cats.

One I think is a good person but I really don't think she puts in the
right efforts (pixie bob breeder). I truly do think she cares, she seems
to care about taking in cats she finds (not breeding them, she only breeds
her pixie bobs) and kittens left on doorsteps. But I just don't think
she's a good breeder and I wouldn't recomend her. One totally
disgusts me because it seems she just wants to breed it if it looks
Dalmation (she at one point wanted to take in a dog that needed a home
just to breed him, no worries about what problems he might bring in the
breed. And I believe she was planning on adopting him to breed, then
finding a home for him elsewhere. And all the time she has her dogs up
for adoption saying she doesn't have time for them.. ??!!!!!!!).

There are good and bad in everything, I'm sure. I think with less popular
breeds, the breeders are sort of self-policing, and condemn those who are less
than ethical. So I would be more suspicious of those breeders who aren't
members of the breed groups--although I'm sure it depends on who is in the
group.

(-L.) wrote:

If it looks, acts, walks and smells purebred, it's purebred enough to
have come from purebred parents or parentage.

Not in my opinion. Plenty of cats may look like a Siamese or a British
shorthair, but they are not purebred and did not come from any breeder. Some
characteristics of a particular breed can arise naturally in mixed breed
cats,
after all. It doesn't mean there was ever a purebred cat in the cat's
background.

With some breeds, it is unmistakable. Look at this pic. This cat was brought to
our shelter. Would you call it purebred? It certainly isn't a street cat
everyday moggie.
http://members.aol.com/gladyss5/persian.jpg

I think she's a good example of Lyn's "if it looks, acts, walks and smells
purebred." This cat came from a breeder, somewhere, at some point, or possibly
her parents did. .Whether the breeder was a member of CFA, TICA or what doesn't
matter. I think you'll agree she didn't turn up in a litter of barn cats. She
wasn't spayed. Persians are *not* at all uncommon at our shelter. The Korat we
got last month was neutered. I don't have a pic of him, but he didn't turrn up
in a litter of barn cats either. Some breeds are unmistakably the product of
deliberate breeding.

Sherry

Sherry

(-L.) wrote:

If it looks, acts, walks and smells purebred, it's purebred enough to
have come from purebred parents or parentage.

Not in my opinion. Plenty of cats may look like a Siamese or a British
shorthair, but they are not purebred and did not come from any breeder. Some
characteristics of a particular breed can arise naturally in mixed breed
cats,
after all. It doesn't mean there was ever a purebred cat in the cat's
background.

With some breeds, it is unmistakable. Look at this pic. This cat was brought to
our shelter. Would you call it purebred? It certainly isn't a street cat
everyday moggie.
http://members.aol.com/gladyss5/persian.jpg

I think she's a good example of Lyn's "if it looks, acts, walks and smells
purebred." This cat came from a breeder, somewhere, at some point, or possibly
her parents did. .Whether the breeder was a member of CFA, TICA or what doesn't
matter. I think you'll agree she didn't turn up in a litter of barn cats. She
wasn't spayed. Persians are *not* at all uncommon at our shelter. The Korat we
got last month was neutered. I don't have a pic of him, but he didn't turrn up
in a litter of barn cats either. Some breeds are unmistakably the product of
deliberate breeding.

Sherry

Sherry

.. Only three percent
of
owned cats in the U.S. are purebred (but 25% of dogs are purebred--perhaps
that's where that figure comes from).

That sounds really low to me, three percent. Could you share your source for
that info.?

.. Only three percent
of
owned cats in the U.S. are purebred (but 25% of dogs are purebred--perhaps
that's where that figure comes from).

That sounds really low to me, three percent. Could you share your source for
that info.?

ospam (Yngver) wrote in message ...
(-L.) wrote:

If it looks, acts, walks and smells purebred, it's purebred enough to
have come from purebred parents or parentage.

Not in my opinion. Plenty of cats may look like a Siamese or a British
shorthair, but they are not purebred and did not come from any breeder. Some
characteristics of a particular breed can arise naturally in mixed breed cats,
after all.

If a cat is *that* mixed, it isn't going to have the confirmation of a
purebred. Plain and simple.


It doesn't mean there was ever a purebred cat in the cat's
background.

Some come in with
pedigrees, as well.

If from a legimitate registry, I would consider those purebred then.

If there's any doubt, it is listed was listed as
a "breed-mix", in the shelters I worked at.

I'm not saying they aren't, just wondering
how your shelter determines that. The reason I ask is because if I type in
a
certain breed at petfinders.com, I can see that none of the cats listed are
actually that breed,

People list them as such hoping someone interested in the breed will
look at them and fall in love. Not an uncommon tactic.

I know, but those cats did not come from any breeder.

and I don't even have a very educated eye. I have a friend
who works in a breed rescue, and it's pretty much the same thing--most of
the
time the cats in question turn out to be mixed breed.

Many are, but for others it doesn't take a brain scientist to figure
out that one parent, at least, was purebred. Just another way our
breeder friends are contributing to the problem.

As I said, I don't really believe that. I've seen plenty of cats with white
feet that never had a Birman, Ragdoll or Snowshoe cat in their background.

Well, duh. We're not talking coloration alone.

That's because white feet can show up naturally. The Birman rescue, for
example, uses CFA judges and breeders to determine whether a cat is really a
purebred, pedigreed Birman, using related pedigree papers. This way they can
trace the Birman back to the breeder. While to many people a particular cat may
look just like a true Birman, the rescue can tell that it's not.

Only because it doesn't have papers? That's ludicrous. A good
breeder can tell if a cat is purebed without any papers, and the good
breeders (an oxymoron if there ever was one) - those who are
interested in the *cats* as well as the breed - will take the cat
regardless of whether or not it came in with registry papers.

Your argument makes the breeders *you* refer to look even more like
the prentious assholes that we already know they are.


So to assume that just because a cat looks like a certain breed of cat it must
have come from a breeder at some point is false.

Oh, so let me see if I understand you correctly:

You can get a cat that has all of the characteristics of a breed, has
good confirmation, is an exquisite example, and yet, *isn't* purebred,
or at least doesn't have purebred parentage? Yeah, right.

Why do breeders continue this sham, then?

-L.

ospam (Yngver) wrote in message ...
(-L.) wrote:

If it looks, acts, walks and smells purebred, it's purebred enough to
have come from purebred parents or parentage.

Not in my opinion. Plenty of cats may look like a Siamese or a British
shorthair, but they are not purebred and did not come from any breeder. Some
characteristics of a particular breed can arise naturally in mixed breed cats,
after all.

If a cat is *that* mixed, it isn't going to have the confirmation of a
purebred. Plain and simple.


It doesn't mean there was ever a purebred cat in the cat's
background.

Some come in with
pedigrees, as well.

If from a legimitate registry, I would consider those purebred then.

If there's any doubt, it is listed was listed as
a "breed-mix", in the shelters I worked at.

I'm not saying they aren't, just wondering
how your shelter determines that. The reason I ask is because if I type in
a
certain breed at petfinders.com, I can see that none of the cats listed are
actually that breed,

People list them as such hoping someone interested in the breed will
look at them and fall in love. Not an uncommon tactic.

I know, but those cats did not come from any breeder.

and I don't even have a very educated eye. I have a friend
who works in a breed rescue, and it's pretty much the same thing--most of
the
time the cats in question turn out to be mixed breed.

Many are, but for others it doesn't take a brain scientist to figure
out that one parent, at least, was purebred. Just another way our
breeder friends are contributing to the problem.

As I said, I don't really believe that. I've seen plenty of cats with white
feet that never had a Birman, Ragdoll or Snowshoe cat in their background.

Well, duh. We're not talking coloration alone.

That's because white feet can show up naturally. The Birman rescue, for
example, uses CFA judges and breeders to determine whether a cat is really a
purebred, pedigreed Birman, using related pedigree papers. This way they can
trace the Birman back to the breeder. While to many people a particular cat may
look just like a true Birman, the rescue can tell that it's not.

Only because it doesn't have papers? That's ludicrous. A good
breeder can tell if a cat is purebed without any papers, and the good
breeders (an oxymoron if there ever was one) - those who are
interested in the *cats* as well as the breed - will take the cat
regardless of whether or not it came in with registry papers.

Your argument makes the breeders *you* refer to look even more like
the prentious assholes that we already know they are.


So to assume that just because a cat looks like a certain breed of cat it must
have come from a breeder at some point is false.

Oh, so let me see if I understand you correctly:

You can get a cat that has all of the characteristics of a breed, has
good confirmation, is an exquisite example, and yet, *isn't* purebred,
or at least doesn't have purebred parentage? Yeah, right.

Why do breeders continue this sham, then?

-L.

wrote in message ...
wrote:

You're kidding, right? Have you EVER read this NG????? Good God, your
ignorance is astounding. I have to go to work (gotta support my 25
rescued cats somehow) but here, let me help you by giving you just a few
examples of some of the things I do:

*sigh* I'm sorry, whtever way you took it, I didn't mean it that way. I
wasn't saying you don't help cats. I was saying that I think fi you want
to help solve the problem, your efforts are better spent worrying about
other things than purebred cats.

The point is, every new cat put into the system perpetuates the
problem. Yes, stopping the major problem - random bred cats - is
important, but as with all problems, the solution is multi-fold.



snip

I'm saying maybe efforts should be spent more in dealing with these people
than with the ones who are breeding because tehy do care about their breed
and want to improve it (who I will admit are pretty rare which is why I
don't think they are contributing much at all to the problem).

The animals and papers registered by the BYBs are just as valid in the
eyes of the registry group, as those registered by the top breeders.
The problem is huge, and every person who produces an animal
contributes to it.


So you confirm that the lives of those cats are'nt important to you.
Nope, they just don't matter. How sad is that. Apparently it hasn't
occured to you that saving lives and doing the other things you listed
are NOT mutually exclusive.

Or just maybe you and I disagree about what causes the problem.

EVERY cat put into the system contributes to the problem.


You know,
you can agree on one thing but disagree about how to go about it. No,
you'd rather just insult me I suppose. I'm insulted. Happy?

If it makes you feel better, yes, cats lives are important to me. But I'm
not going to save them all (and neither are you no matter how much effort
you put into it). But I am going to say I'll put my efforts where It hink
they will have teh most impact rather than worrying about something that
doesn't have as much impact.

Well, you should worry about it because purebred cats and dogs and
purbred mixes are being killed in shelters right along with the
moggies/mutts.

And, I think in general we'd mostly agree on
who should not breed, just there would be a few you would disagree because
you don't want any breeding and I think that if some one is willing to
take responsibility for every life they bring out, willing to breed for
health and personality along with standard, willing to screen out people
who want a pet who shouldn't is not a bad thing.

You can only say that if you also condone killing of purebreds in
shelters.


Basically, I find most people not good breeders. There is one breeder
(black labs) at my vet that I'd actually endorse.

While other black labs wait on death row...

Is their life really less valuable because they don't have a "special"
paper "proving" so to HUMANS?


And there's several I
would totally not endorse.

One I think is a good person but I really don't think she puts in the
right efforts (pixie bob breeder). I truly do think she cares, she seems
to care about taking in cats she finds (not breeding them, she only breeds
her pixie bobs) and kittens left on doorsteps. But I just don't think
she's a good breeder and I wouldn't recomend her. One totally
disgusts me because it seems she just wants to breed it if it looks
Dalmation (she at one point wanted to take in a dog that needed a home
just to breed him, no worries about what problems he might bring in the
breed. And I believe she was planning on adopting him to breed, then
finding a home for him elsewhere. And all the time she has her dogs up
for adoption saying she doesn't have time for them.. ??!!!!!!!

If you endorse breeders in any form, you endorse them all because
their papers are validated by the registry in the same manner as those
you deem "unacceptable" - not to mention that they perpetuate the
myth that breeding is desirable endeavor - that purebred animals are
in some way "superior" to others.

-L.