Unneutered cats...

[captivebolt]

Harold - you are perfectly correct. I wandered way off toplc. I share your qualms about the RSPCA. They recently "rescued" some 10 GSDs, all reasonably healthy; the RSPCA killed all 10.

My sister has 8 or so cats at a time. When she acquires another, it's flea powder then down the vet for jabs and neutering. They are allowed out, and they do kill birds, but apparently the RSPB take the view that that if a bird is killed by a cat, think of it as evolution in action. The gene pool of the species is improved.

Captivebolt

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by captivebolt

Harold - you are perfectly correct. I wandered way off toplc. I share your qualms about the RSPCA. They recently "rescued" some 10 GSDs, all reasonably healthy; the RSPCA killed all 10.

My sister has 8 or so cats at a time. When she acquires another, it's flea powder then down the vet for jabs and neutering. They are allowed out, and they do kill birds, but apparently the RSPB take the view that that if a bird is killed by a cat, think of it as evolution in action. The gene pool of the species is improved.

Captivebolt

What till no more exist...lovely..

[Cowgirl]

I agree, all cats (except for registered & licenced breeders) should be neutered. I also concur that dogs should be as well.

I get really angry that people think it's good for a dog or cat to have at least one litter ("It's nature") RUBBISH! In the case of dogs it's so you can sell them for hunderds of £'s profit, admit it, it's for your self-gratification, nothing to do with the animals health. Also in 'nature' ie wolves, the pups would stay with the pack. Sorry, wandered off a bit for a rant. I don't object to dog or cat breeders obviously, just those people that pretend they're breeding for the sake of their pet. That subject really pushes my button.

[captivebolt]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

What till no more exist...lovely..

The birds that escape from the evil moggies are better equipped to pass on their genes for escape.

The idea that a cat or dog "needs" to have a litter is unmitigated claptrap.

[Hedgehoggy]

Originally Posted by Harold Smith

However, my concern is Hedgehoggy's report about the RSPCA suggesting that the kittens be euthanized. Why? If the animals are badly injured or are so ill it may be a justification; otherwise, if they are perfectly fit and healthy every endeavour should be made to ensure the animals are found a suitable home, and that is what I have always understood to be the remit of the RSPCA.

This is worrying situation which needs to be monitored for the sake of pet owners and the RSPCA.

Harold, sadly it is true and is indeed a worrying situation. All animal shelters are full to capacity with unwanted cats/kittens, dogs/puppies and there just isn’t the holding space to accommodate them all, let alone find homes for them.

The following excerpt is taken from the RSPCA’s Animal Welfare euthanasia policy (Revised 2006) http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator...0249&mode=prd:

The RSPCA is opposed to the euthanasia of fit and healthy animals. The RSPCA nevertheless accepts, with great reluctance, that in certain circumstances euthanasia may be necessary, in particular in the case of unwanted or stray animals for which appropriate homes are not available and which would therefore endure long-term suffering through deprivation of basic needs.

The RSPCA will continue to strive for a future where putting down fit and healthy animals will be unnecessary. Euthanasia is forced on the RSPCA by irresponsible ownership. This may be because of indiscriminate breeding for profit, current trends in the marketing of animals, and problems caused by the effects of social circumstances.

Many cat charities operate a TNR programme (trap-neuter-release) to keep the numbers of ferals down to a sustainable level, but as fast as the charities are doing this, Tiddles goes out and continues to father litter after litter while his owners remain blissfully unaware of the havoc he’s creating. It’s an ever-decreasing circle all the time cat owners allow their [free-roaming] cats to remain entire.

As a footnote, it doesn’t take long to form a new feral colony; one female cat can produce up to 15-20 kittens in one year...


[Dear Mods, thank you for allowing this thread to run here. Even if just one cat owner acted upon this, it would be an achievement and a step in the right direction. Once you feel it has run its course, instead of moving it to the Treehouse, I wondered if it might be better placed in the Campaigns and Petitions section, where it could still be accessed by unregistered members? ]

[werdnal]

I totally agree with the sentiments of the OP.

We have 2 cats, litter mates, boy - Toffee and girl - Treacle, born to a stray mother under my auntie's shed. We took them as kittens once they were old enough to leave mum. They were totally feral - for the first 2 weeks we hardly saw them as they "lived" behind our sofa, only venturing out for food and litter tray. We gradually won their trust, and they turned into the most loving and loyal cats we could ever have known. Obviously, we had them both neutered as soon as they were old enough. They are now both 17, and I often wonder how long they would have lasted had we not taken them.

My aunt managed to trap the mother, and got her spayed, but she was far too timid and wild to become a house-cat, so she lived outside and auntie and her neighbour fed her for years, until she disappeared one day.

We have lived here since '93, and have regularly had roaming tom cats turning up every spring. They get in through our cat flap, pinch food and spray indoors. We caught one who we knew was a stray, and had him neutered under the Cats Protection League voucher scheme. He too was wild and feral, and we tried to get the RSPCA to take him, but they said it unlikely he'd ever make a pet, so we should let him go again! A second one we caught in a trap and took to a local independent cat rescue centre. They had him checked at the vets and found him to have a badly damaged eye, probably caused by fighting. These cats are also as risk of car accidents, as they roam over such a large area every night, or just become strays as their instinct to find a mate, overwhelms their links with home.

I can understand why people don't bother to get them done, as vets are not cheap, but if you cannot be a responsible owner, then you should not take them on in the first place. No one except registered breeders of cats (or dogs for that matter) should have any reason to keep "entire" animals.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

I get really angry that people think it's good for a dog or cat to have at least one litter ("It's nature") RUBBISH! In the case of dogs it's so you can sell them for hunderds of £'s profit, admit it, it's for your self-gratification, nothing to do with the animals health. .

technically speaking it is better for the bitch/queen's health to have one litter before it is speyed- or so my vet tells us - because it decreases the risk of cervical cancer. In males there is no such benefit and they ought to be castrated early assuming you arent going to deliberately breed from them.

In our case it was academic because our dog had already had a litter before we got her - so she is now booked for speying.

[werdnal]

Eeyore, I think you will find vets differ on this. Our local radio has a vets phone in on Sunday mornings, and this very question was asked this morning. The vet said that she personnally has never found evidence that it is necessary, but said other vets may have different opinions. She has 3 bitches, and all were spayed at 6 months, one is now 14 and never had any health problems.

To be honest, I would have thought there is little benefit to putting an animal through the unnecessary rollercoaster of hormones created by pregnancy, but I'm no expert!

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by captivebolt

Harold - you are perfectly correct. I wandered way off toplc. I share your qualms about the RSPCA. They recently "rescued" some 10 GSDs, all reasonably healthy; the RSPCA killed all 10.


Captivebolt

and where killed by your user name.

Off topic but the RSPCA havs fallen below my radar now.

[Cowgirl]

Originally Posted by eeyore

technically speaking it is better for the bitch/queen's health to have one litter before it is speyed- or so my vet tells us - because it decreases the risk of cervical cancer. In males there is no such benefit and they ought to be castrated early assuming you arent going to deliberately breed from them.

In our case it was academic because our dog had already had a litter before we got her - so she is now booked for speying.

Interesting, Eeyore & I'm all up for learning, but it seems even the vets disagree, but am I talking rubbish when I say I had heard that nuns (the ones that remain 'pure' shall we say!) don't get cervical cancer? I know dogs & humans are completely different (& I'm not suggesting putting them in the same boat at all) & it's probably a load of total clap trap anyway but in the spirit of gentle debate, interesting if true tho?

However my point still remains valid about most peoples reasons for allowing dogs to have a litter is financial rather than concern & it's that fact that makes me angry.

Also, sorry this is a bit garbled, as I write I think of other things. If a pet male tom cat comes into your house how ethical/feasible is it to get one of the charities to neuter it? Then you could release it none the wiser except for the cat thinking. "wow not going there again!" You're not harming it after all. As long as the owner doesn't find out as Tiddles often disappears for a couple of days!