posted July 29, 2004 04:24 PM         

We were going to get our girls tubal ligation but apparantly tubal ligation for cats can cause anemia and it is suggested that if the choice is between ligation and nothing that you should do nothing. So just the boys will get vasectomies and then everyone can have a good time. Don't you think that cats deserve a good quality social life?

posted July 29, 2004 04:45 PM         

I don't know if you're joking or not, but the main reason to get pets spayed and neutered is to control the population problem of too many animals who have no home and are stuck in shelters, or feral, many of which end up getting euthanized because of overpopulation.

I am not crazy about cats in heat, they go crazy for sex, and keep everyone up all night howling, and crouching in "the position".

posted July 29, 2004 04:58 PM         

Spaying eliminates the chances of female diseases/problems down the road too.

Much luck to your nervous system when their heat rolls around. Until I hid it, my Siamese kitten yowled & caterwauled while rubbing & crouching for the dern vacuum cleaner.

juniperb

posted July 29, 2004 09:13 PM         

I understand about the overpopulation problem which is why we are vasectomizing (?) but I think that it is wrong to alter an animal so much just because we want them as pets, the caterwauling is ridiculous but I can make adjustments if it means that my pets will be happier, you know. If there were alien life forms observing our society and wanting us for pets they may look at us and say oh it only for reproduction lets just get rid of the plumbing and rid ourselves of the problem. Now HOW WOULD THAT MAKE US FEEL! oH NOOOO I know how I would feel and it's evident from the caps in the preceding sentences how I would feel.
Overpopulation is a problem and it needs to be delt with properly to stop euthanizing but if we say that we care so much about our very own pets we can employ alternatives to completely removing a body part. Why should they be the only ones to make adjustments when we begin to live together?

Ask any man or woman who says that they don't want more kids: Well how about we remove your testicles since you don't need 'em? Or Hey Lady let's take out that uterus now that you are finished using it...I don't care if that woman has three kids that she has no money to feed and she just ran out of condoms, there is very little chance that she is going to let you chop out her womb.
But we do plan to have our females spayed when they are about 3 or 4 to prevent tumors and the like, but by then at least they would have had a few cat years of enjoyment.

Do you guys think so?

posted July 30, 2004 09:52 AM         

When doing a series of checks and balances, positives on one side of a sheet of paper, negatives on the other...I easily come out in favor of spaying/neutering.

Technically, I believe the animals can still have sex, but they are not as overcome by hormones. Or am I wrong about that?
I've had males and females get a little hot and heavy.

Cats get loose...all it takes is one time and boom, there's a new litter.

posted July 30, 2004 03:57 PM         

To me, the choice is clear: spay and neuter. The trade-off for the animals may likely be that more of them will have wonderful cushy lives and fewer will be abandoned at shelters.

I'm not finding the right words silverbells, I will think on this further and see what I come up with for you.

posted August 02, 2004 04:30 PM         

Neutering a male cat not only stops the explosion in the cat population but is also helps alleviate spraying, cat fighting - the increase in testosterone leads to territorial fights, which leads to expensive vet procedures to suture up bite wounds and clean abscesses. Neutering also helps stop cancers caused by having the little dingle balls (domestic cats live longer and therefore are more prone to testicular cancer..etc.. than we would see in the wild where they die sooner).

Neutering is NOT a vasectomy. The testicles are scrubbed, plucked of hair and then an incision is made in each one, the testicle pulled out and the seminal tubes tied. The cats male organs are much easier to access than a dog- their neutering procedure is more like vasectomy. The procedure for a female cat is more invasive and requires anesthesia whereas the male procedure requires only an IV sedative. The cats are up and about shortly after and it doesn't stop their...ummm..amour

In any case, you are NOT doing anyone any favors and you are actually causing more problems and suffering by letting the animals have "sex". They do not have sex as a sign of intimacy but as an urge to procreate. For every litter you bring into the world you are sentancing those kittens / cats to a potentially terrible life and death.

I have personally adopted several of those cats aways. Those cats that nobody wanted because owners allowed their cats " to have sex". Millions of cats and dogs are euthanized each year because of people that want "virile" animals.

I think you would offer to volunteer in an animal hospital or animals shelter for at least 3 months. After working with the animals before they are euthanized re-evaluate your theory on cats / dogs needing to have sex. All it takes is being responsible for having to euthanize one animal before you realize how horrible the over-breeding is. I have also had to work with the litters abandoned by mother cats or owners and feed them every hour on the hour. What about those kittens? Where do they go? Most of the time, when they are caught, they are just euthanized with the mother. It is horrible to have to look at an animal, pet her and then gas her.

I have had to be the one to euthanize unwanted animals and it's heart breaking. I love my cats dearly and not only did I push for them to be spayed, but I personally help spay my little Phoebe.

posted August 03, 2004 12:53 AM         

I understand what you are saying and I wish there was a way. The only way of know of is to let the animals have free reign. They get pregnant and you terminate the pregnancy.

What is crueler? Letting them conceive, then sedating them, only to go inside and take out each placenta and euthanize the babies or give them the injection that causes them to abort?

I had the terrible experience of witnessing the latter. An ugly witch that resembled Cruella in more ways that one, came in with a beautiful golden retriever. The dog had been allowed to "play" and got knocked up by an unsavory- unregistered dog. She waited to get the "doggie abortion" and the vet on call gave the shot. I was ordered to take the expelled baby and kill it.

I couldn't do it. I still have nightmares about it because each and every dog was born ALIVE. They were fully formed. I wouldn't pick them up, instead I let the dog do what she needed to do. We, the other techs and I, had begged the vet to let us keep the puppies. We would all take one home and bottle feed it until they were adoptable. But once those owners sign off, we have to kill the puppies or kittens.

I vowed never to work in a place like that again and I never have. The last ER animals hospital I worked at did not do those kinds of procedures.

At this time there are NO animal birthcontrol methods.

posted August 03, 2004 09:59 AM         

But to play devil's advocate again...people don't care for their animals as it is. It's truly shocking to me, how cruel people are to animals. Over population of domestic pets is a huge problem.

I just don't see people taking a pro-active role with birth control for their pets. A pill a day? A shot once a month? Even a shot once a quarter...people won't do it. Too much work, too much expense.

Life is filled with compromise and balance. My pets have a wonderful life, they are loved and indulged on every level. I give them everything I possibly can...I took away their right to reproduce. When my beloved T.C. became so sick that he could not be cured, I took away his right to live.

I feel no reason to apologize for any of that, nor do I feel I have been cruel to them. If there had been an alternative, I might have taken it. But there is not.

posted August 03, 2004 10:36 AM         

The ones that aren't show quality are sold at a "discount" and bred anyway.

Yet, they are treated in "ideal circumstances" (better than most humans when you think about it) and the litters are wanted, I guess.

The majority of animals evolved as human "pets" do not live (or die, the flip side) like that. They can't survive for a long time if left to their own devices and get sick. They are dependant on us.

Silverbells, what will you do with the future litters? Are you going to keep them?

posted August 03, 2004 06:38 PM         

Overpopulation is a problem because of euthansia and cruelty to animals but I was not adressing that issue I was adressing the needs of personal housepets. Also, perhaps I was taking for granted the "fact" that other people would not mind keeping their pets' children. A bit off the beaten path, I heard that mother cats are supposed to alienate their children but my cat still breast feeds her first set of kittens and they are four months old (which seems odd I admit, but hey). My cats try to pick up their food with their paws and sometimes they do and they eat the food out of their paws. We had our adult cats since they were little and our kittens were born in our house and they have habits that I never knew they could have. I think that it is due to the fact that they are living as a cat family (they are all related by blood) and also that they are living with a bunch of humans. I think that some of the findings on animal behaviour is premature and some might be just conjecture.

I don't understand. Did everbody see what I said about the vasectomy? It's a vasectomy like a human male only it's a cat. They are not going to have more kittens, the vasa deferens have been ligated. My vet who did the vasectomy said that there are some people who, rather that spaying their queen, they just insert a thermometer into her vagina for stimulation and that satisfies her heat.

posted August 03, 2004 08:07 PM         

Overpopulation is not a problem because of euthenasia. Euthanasia is a problem, because of overpopulation.

silverbells, I believe that you are a caring, loving pet owner. You may be an exception to the rule.

But I stand by my beliefs. I have worked with animal shelters for many years and I have watched the babies and older pets come through like they are last week's trash, and it tears my soul apart. Wealthy people, educated people, decide to move, and taking the pet is too much trouble. Just dump it.

There are millions of homeless pets, and I hate the risk of adding any more to those horrific numbers. Simple as that.

posted August 07, 2004 09:11 AM         

I understand your points. I'm not saying they aren't valid. There are still many 'buts' involved. Only as a for instance, if for some reason your family can no longer care for your precious females, and if they were to land in a Humane Society, they would be the first to be euthanized. It's very hard to place cats that haven't been spayed/neutered.

As far as which came first, over-population or euthanasia...it may indeed be a 'chicken or the egg' dilemma. But without researching it, I doubt it. Generally, I don't think people take their animals to Humane Societies expressly to be killed. They take them because they no longer want them, for whatever reason. But because these societies could not, and cannot, afford to keep the huge numbers of animals they receive, their solution was/is to euthanize them.

posted August 07, 2004 09:56 AM         

1. You came here and posted, obviously confident for some reason that you'd find people who'd go, "Hey wow, she's got a point!" and found that wasn't the case. Now you apparently resent that others have spoken their minds just as you have. A double standard. It doesn't help your case that you are somehow being smart about this. It sounds more of an ego thing for you ask me.

2. Furthermore, I *do* think this is an ego thing for you because you are obviously projecting specifically human traits upon animals and then acting as if you are somehow more enlightened into the "secret life" of cats than the rest of us. I have a lifetime of experience living with cats and I have seen absolutely *nothing* to validate this nonsense! Cats are cats; humans are humans. Loving someone fully means loving them for their nature, not what we want them to be (especially not because we want them to be like us!!). It sounds like to me that it matters more to you that you are right than to reconsider your position for the wellbeing of your cats.

I suspect my bluntness will offend you further: however, I care far too much about animals to be passive-aggressive the way you have. If you are personally offended, perhaps you need to be. This isn't about you, afterall.

And I'm not done yet, either...

Moreover, simply because you wish so deludedly to project your idea of human desires and fulfillment upon your cats, this will not change their animal nature - for example, your male cats, if they still think they are capable of procreation, will still become aggressive and territorial, fighting with any other males, dominating and bullying females, and wishing to wander to find other fertile females - and will become frustrated, more aggressive and possibly despondant if not allowed to do this. With six cats, you already have a crowded situation, seeing cats naturally need their space. So you're intentionally creating an awful situation where your animals will be subjected to pointless aggression and dominance. Yeah, smart move.

More "rhetoric" you don't wish to hear but need to: When we alter an animal, we aren't taking away their sex drive entirely anyhow. This is actually controlled by the hormones secreted by the pituitary gland in the *brain.* That, by the way, is not removed. So neutered animals still possess a "sexuality" which is why male animals still act dominant and females act maternal. It is just they have no impulses to copulate, which I don't have a problem with.

However if you wish to get into a debate about this, in addition to the horrendous situation you're creating with the males, I personally think it's more cruel for you to allow an intelligent female animal to go into heat repeatedly without allowing her to become pregnant and raise her babies. I do have a lot of experience with different animals - from chimps to fish - and their babies, and I seen with consistancy that female animals that are more highly evolved intellectually that are fertile desire to have babies and can become depressed if they cannot have them for whatever reason. This is all the more frustrating for them because, unlike us who can rationalize our unfulfilled desires, animals don't understand and this only adds to the pointlessness of the situation.

Animals are blessed with a nonrational and therefore simple and innocence existence that we should cherish, admire, be inspired by and respect. Thinking that cats or any other intellectually evolved animal can rationalize their sexuality the way humans do is ludcrious as it goes against their nature as intelligent but nonrational beings. However, because of such a nature, they are genuinely sensitive enough to feel profound frustration, yet are still unable to understand the "purpose" of it - something that we humans, being rational and thus capable of finding a resolution to such a problem, must be sensitive to. Domesticated animals have been "altered" already to be dependant upon us through years of irreversable breeding, and in order for them to live in our environment without unneccesary frustrations, I think it's quite responsible to have them spayed or nuetered. They can live a wonderful and contented life without having to go about copulating whenever their hormones dictate (since, unlike us, they don't possess the rational faculties to resist or be selective about these impulses - nothing wrong with that *if* there was a need for them to procreate).