TheCatSite.com › Forums › Feral Cats and Rescue › Cats S.O.S › Interesting idea
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interesting idea

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/pet/1142355888.html

This was posted by a local rescue in my area. Seems like a great idea if they have the finances and the foster space. What do you guys think of this?
post #2 of 19
Yes, very good.

But taking the kittens at 7/8 weeks is unnecessarily early. 10 weeks is better. 12 is optimal they say.
post #3 of 19
I think that's a great idea. It would certainly work with people who were really planning on having momma s/n before the "oops."

I am a little confused though. Do the momma cat's owners have to pay for s/n for her and the kits? If they are the irresponsible type of people to let her get pregnant in the first place, I wonder if they'd be willing to pay to have the babies s/n and/or placed.

Even if momma goes home to the original owners, it will take resources for the s/n/shots, etc. in addition to finding homes for everyone. But what a great idea if they have the resources.

I'm with StefanZ, though - 7-8 weeks seems a little young.
post #4 of 19
Hi,

I've got mixed feelings about this too- 7/8 weeks are way too young , particularly if the kittens are adopted out immediately afterwards. Hopefully this is not the case and the kittens can stay together for another 4-5 weeks at a foster home.

Also- the pricing sceme seems a little odd

Quote

"If you have 5 or more kittens, we will do the spay for free. Four kittens $50. Three kittens $75, and one or two kittens $100.
This would otherwise cost you over $200 to spay and vaccinate, plus test your momma cat."

So if you have 5 kittens go ahead and get them spayed for free- if you have only one kitten this will cost you 100 dollars? What kind of sense does that make? This will mean that people, who's kitty only had one or two kittens, will be more inclined to re-home it/them un-neutered, at which point this one kitten will have a litter of kittens 6 moths later....

Obviously the budget will be tight and they probably can't do all the spaying they'd want to do for free. But I think it would be better if they had a fixed price for getting a litter spayed, regardless of the number of kittens.

Over all I think it's great that they are spaying


regards,

Christine
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by StefanZ View Post
Yes, very good.

But taking the kittens at 7/8 weeks is unnecessarily early. 10 weeks is better. 12 is optimal they say.

Hmm, I was just thinking...

Once the kittens are weaned they start costing money & start being more destructive ..... they may have had to make the experience that many peole aren't willing to have the kittens around for much longer then 7 weeks.

It may simply be more realistic to take the kittens at 7 weeks, fully knowing that this is too young rather then having people getting rid of them or re-homing them un-spayed because they don't want the bother of taking care of the litter.

A sad thought.


Christine
post #6 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh27 View Post
But I think it would be better if they had a fixed price for getting a litter spayed, regardless of the number of kittens.
I don't think it has anything to do with the LITTER, they take the kittens to adopt them out and spay the MAMA cat. I don't understand the pricing, either.....except that maybe a mama cat who's had 5 kittens needs to be spayed more than one who has 2 kittens? Weird.

I do think that all rescues should do this. A dog rescue around here will take puppies ONLY if the owners allow them to spay the mama dog. Otherwise they end up with the same people dropping off 2 litters a year, every single year.

Honestly, I think more rescues need to put more resources into spay programs (they can ignore neutering until enough resources are available). It makes no sense to keep rescuing unwanted kittens if the mama cats are just going to have more.
post #7 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowy View Post
Honestly, I think more rescues need to put more resources into spay programs (they can ignore neutering until enough resources are available). It makes no sense to keep rescuing unwanted kittens if the mama cats are just going to have more.

Sorry, would you mind explaining to me the difference between spaying and neutering concerning cats? I'm from Germany I somehow thought these are synonymes.

If you don't fix a kitten before re- homing it chances are that it too will produce ofspring. So in my oppinion mama AND kittens should be fixed.

regards,

christine
post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh27 View Post
Sorry, would you mind explaining to me the difference between spaying and neutering concerning cats? I'm from Germany I somehow thought these are synonymes.

If you don't fix a kitten before re- homing it chances are that it too will produce ofspring. So in my oppinion mama AND kittens should be fixed.

regards,

christine
Technically speaking, neutering is synonomous; spaying is the term for neutering females and gelding is the term for neutering males; but for some reason, the term "gelding" upsets lots of people, so we use the more 'gentle' term of neutering (for the males) instead.

I was also confused at the pricing of the spaying, and that they want to take the kittens at such a young age. I think that it may be indicative of the area that the rescue is located in. In my area, it is very common for kittens to be given away at 6wks. - it's been an uphill battle for our local vets to change that mindset
post #9 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
Technically speaking, neutering is synonomous; spaying is the term for neutering females and gelding is the term for neutering males; but for some reason, the term "gelding" upsets lots of people, so we use the more 'gentle' term of neutering (for the males) instead.:

Why thank you

Oh dear, very OT- but what is offensive in using the term gelding? Granted, I'd associate a gelding with a hose, not a cat. But why sould this term be upsetting? Clearly I'm missing something here


regards,

christine
post #10 of 19
Actually I think "castrating" is the proper term. I think "gelding" is just used for horses. And maybe cows. Perhaps people just think that "castration" sounds too....explicit? Anyway, "neutering" can be used for either gender but it's commonly used for males. Spaying is only used for females, as a synonym for ovariohysterectomy.

I'm sure the rescue alters the kittens before adoption, too, but the original owner doesn't have to pay for it!
post #11 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowy View Post
Actually I think "castrating" is the proper term. I think "gelding" is just used for horses. And maybe cows. Perhaps people just think that "castration" sounds too....explicit? Anyway, "neutering" can be used for either gender but it's commonly used for males. Spaying is only used for females, as a synonym for ovariohysterectomy.!
Ahh! I am much enlightend, thanks!

We use castrate for both males and females


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowy View Post
I'm sure the rescue alters the kittens before adoption, too, but the original owner doesn't have to pay for it!
So much for reading carefully. It says that the kittens are re-homed with spay/neuter contracts. I'm spending too much time online.

The bit about the number of kittens though remains mysterious. The main goal should be to get the mother spayed. I think it will put people off if there's only two kittens and 100 Dollars are to be payed.


christine
post #12 of 19
Christine - you might also hear the term "speuter", which is a combination of spay and neuter. Applies to any gender.

While the pricing may seem counter-intuitive, I think they are trying to get to the people that have too many unspayed cats. If you have 5 or more intact kittens that aren't going into the program, then getting them all done will prevent that many more unwanted pregnancies. And while it would be great if they could speuter any kitten, they probably couldn't afford it. Thus the free speuter on 5 or more prevents more homeless cats over time.
post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
If you have 5 or more intact kittens that aren't going into the program, then getting them all done will prevent that many more unwanted pregnancies.
See, that's not how I'm reading it. My understanding of their (admittedly confusing) policy is that a mama cat with more than 5 kittens gets a free spay, and a mama cat with only 2 kittens will have to pay $100 (well, her owners will ). Not, "if you bring 5 or more cats to be spayed it's free".
post #14 of 19
Thread Starter 
My guess is that they charge an adoption fee for young kittens of $125-150 (typical for this area). If the kittens are vet checked, wormed, and given the first vaccine, then adopted out on a spay/neuter contract, is it possible that the adoption fee would cover costs for the kittens, plus leave a little extra profit to cover spaying the momma cat? That would make sense then if 5 kittens = free spay for mom cat, while 2 kittens = $100 charge to spay mom. I know this rescue has been around a long time (my parents adopted our first cat from them 20+ years ago) so I wonder if they have relationships established with local vets for discounted care that would keep the rescue's out-of-pocket vet charges for a typical litter relatively low. Of course, some kittens might have other health issues, but this is the thought that crossed my mind.
post #15 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowy View Post
See, that's not how I'm reading it. My understanding of their (admittedly confusing) policy is that a mama cat with more than 5 kittens gets a free spay, and a mama cat with only 2 kittens will have to pay $100 (well, her owners will ). Not, "if you bring 5 or more cats to be spayed it's free".
Um yes- but if a momma cat has a litter of 2 or 5 is down to nature and the care given to the cat... that's the bit I don't understant. It's not like you can choose the litter number ...

So lets say a mommy has a litter of 5, 3 die because the owner didn't take care of them or genetic defects due to inbreeding (or any other cause). So this owner goes to this resue organisation and wants momma spayed- the answer is: "100 Dollars, please!" So would this owner say: "Gee, fine with me!" or walk away and the next litter is then on its way?


Christine
post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh27 View Post
Hmm, I was just thinking...

Once the kittens are weaned they start costing money & start being more destructive ..... they may have had to make the experience that many peole aren't willing to have the kittens around for much longer then 7 weeks.

It may simply be more realistic to take the kittens at 7 weeks, fully knowing that this is too young rather then having people getting rid of them or re-homing them un-spayed because they don't want the bother of taking care of the litter.

A sad thought.


Christine
Yes, this is very possible.

But in this case, they could write: We recommend the kittens to be with mom 10-12 weeks, but if the owner wish, we can take them at 7/8 weeks.

Or something like that.
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh27 View Post
.. that's the bit I don't understant. It's not like you can choose the litter number ...
Hehe, I don't understand the reasoning behind the policy either, I was just trying to understand the facts of it.
post #18 of 19
They think perhaps about kittens as about children. Ie more children more costs for raising them.
Thus the bigger family gets bigger help.
post #19 of 19
It dawned on me an rational explanation:

It is easier to find homes for a small litter.
One stays home, one gets to a neighbour...

But big litters is more difficult to find homes for: you must search actively. Thus the risk is increasing for the "end solution", or even worse - abandoning...


I think this is why they have their seemingly peculiar payment-solution:
to protect these innocent lives.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cats S.O.S
TheCatSite.com › Forums › Feral Cats and Rescue › Cats S.O.S › Interesting idea