animal control trapped cats Help!

tnr1

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
7,980
Purraise
13
Location
Northern Virginia
Originally Posted by Darla S

I am sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this,but my daughter-in-law is in the hospital. She is pregnant and they think she has appendicitis. She is doing fine, but they don't want to operate. It is kinda scary. Anyway my daughter and I went to the animal shelter and waited an hour for the lady to take her cats. We wanted to see her and talk with her and find out if they would be cared for and if she even liked cats. We are afraid they will never get petted or even doctored if needed. She didn't show up so we had them call her. She had never even said she would pick them up.It wasnt the animal shelters fault. It was the control officer. I don't like him. The lady told my daughter they will be put to sleep tomorrow, which is today now, if you don't take them. The little one was still in the cat trap.No food or water or litter box. When we first got there I asked if we could put them in with the other buddies of his. He was so scared. All scrunched in the back of the trap. When we got him in the cage with his orange friends they all curled up together. That is just a horrible place. This is Miami, Okla. The ones that volunteer are trying to do all they can, but no help from the City. They said the officers only buy ol-roy dog food for the cats and the dogs. Plus they make them put them down quicker because the police in Miami don't like to check on the animals at night and weekends. They were having to water out the cages on weekends. They said the police refused to clean after cats. If they can't clean a cat cage, I would hate to see them in any other situation. Lazy, Lazy uncaring people. The people that work the animal shelter are doing everything they can against the odds. I asked if we could make a website so people could view the animals and the lady was so sad. She said by the time anyone saw the animals they were already gone. So I am seeing all the faces of the cats and dogs I saw and thinking they don't deserve this. If we had not went to check this out the cats would have been put down and we would have thought they got a home. I know that is what the officer wanted us to think too. I wanted to walk up and call him a liar. I noticed when we arrived he wouldn't even look at us and then he walked in the back room and I never saw him again. We put the scared, confused cats back in her house. The lady that was supposed to get them told her to keep them and she would find someone to take care of them. I really don't know what to do. She is thinking of the cat fence again, but my daughter is confused too. This would not help this situation, but she wants to buy a house in the country. It hurt her because she talked to these neighbors a lot that turned her in. I am sorry this is so jumbled, but I am typing early and trying not to wake up my little girl. Thanks everyone and I will let you know
Darla...I'm truly sorry....especially because I know you and your daughter wanted to do best by these cats. What I recommend you do is contact Alley Cat Allies about the situation there. These cats may not be able to be saved, but perhaps a TNR group can form or the ordinance can be challanged so that outdoor cats have a chance.

Here is the way to contact them:

http://www.alleycat.org/contact.html

You also may want to contact the Best Friends Network:

(435) 644-2001 ext 123, or e-mail them at [email protected]

as they may know individuals in your area who can help.

Katie
 

keith p

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
1,474
Purraise
4
Location
(Long Island) west babylon, New York
For the sake of the cats in the united states, they should make a law that they are not allowed to roam free unless they are someone's pet,are fixed, and have proper i.d, AND no more american shorthair cat breeders, we have enough of those as strays and ferals. That way there would be no more or at least ALOT less strays and ferals, helping millions of cats! Well first they would have to have a sancutary for them all because all those cats cant be adopted or even placed in all the shelters, but can be fed a diet of meat and stuff like what do you on a sancutarary for let say EX: lions, except smaller proportions. They will run wild, but all will be vaccinated and fixed before being set free, but the sancuary will be acres and acres of land hopefully enough to place all the strays of the united states in. And no worries about people killing them because they will all be protected by government law. I know it can happen if someone with alot of money wants it to, just need to make sure no endangered animals are in the sancutary like birds and rodents, and small reptiles!
 

tnr1

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
7,980
Purraise
13
Location
Northern Virginia
Originally Posted by keith p

For the sake of the cats in the united states, they should make a law that they are not allowed to roam free unless they are someone's pet,are fixed, and have proper i.d, AND no more american shorthair cat breeders, we have enough of those as strays and ferals. That way there would be no more or at least ALOT less strays and ferals, helping millions of cats! Well first they would have to have a sancutary for them all because all those cats cant be adopted or even placed in all the shelters, but can be fed a diet of meat and stuff like what do you on a sancutarary for let say EX: lions, except smaller proportions. They will run wild, but all will be vaccinated and fixed before being set free, but the sancuary will be acres and acres of land hopefully enough to place all the strays of the united states in. And no worries about people killing them because they will all be protected by government law. I know it can happen if someone with alot of money wants it to, just need to make sure no endangered animals are in the sancutary like birds and rodents, and small reptiles!
Keith..you realize that the law you are proposing would ensure the death of thousands of feral cats. Plus, the law only works if there are individuals to enforce it. There are countless feral cats...many more than a single sanctuary could keep. I would rather follow Indianapolis' lead and embrace TNR for strays and ferals:

http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67175

Katie
 

keith p

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
1,474
Purraise
4
Location
(Long Island) west babylon, New York
They would only die if they had no shelter,food, or medication. My way would ensure all of that but they also would never have to be caged, off course large houses would be built for bad weather so they can go in them, but only if they want to. And when I meant sancutary, I didnt mean building, I meant miles and miles of grass and wooded areas, all surrounded by fences, but so far you couldnt even see them without binoculars. Hey relax it will probably never happen nobody would even think of this idea anyway. Its a shame people werent responcible enough to start by not letting this all happen, meaning not fixing there pets.
 

tnr1

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
7,980
Purraise
13
Location
Northern Virginia
They would only die if they had no shelter,food, or medication.
You are not giving feral cats enough credit....they have been around for decades....and they are able to find their own food and shelter. This is from Nathan Winograd who I greatly respect:

The notion that all cats should be indoors only, regardless of where one lives is as silly as it sounds. The notion that outdoor cats are guaranteed a life of disease is contradicted by the facts (In San Francisco, for example, ten years of feral cat TNR demonstrated that the FeLV and FIV rate in feral cats was about 1-2%, the same as the pet cat population in a crowded city where most people kept them indoors). This idea that life on the streets is hard for all defies common experience. If you work in a shelter, do what I call the "chubby" test. For every feral cat that comes in a three or six month period, mark whether they look healthy and of adequate weight, or whether they are scrawny and sickly. For most shelters, most of the ferals will be plump - having found some niche where they are eating and doing well. There will always be counter-examples. But for the most part, life on the streets ain't so bad (at any rate, are we actually going to accept the ludicrous claim that because some feral cats will suffer, all feral cats should be killed as a preventative?) So stop promoting it as incontrovertible.

Katie
 

keith p

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
1,474
Purraise
4
Location
(Long Island) west babylon, New York
Im not trying to say kill them? But if we dont get enough trapped and fixed we will have greater problems with more being born. I support TNR but then again you then support the cats killing local wildlife to eat? Not all feral cats released back after TNR are ever fed again by people, and if you talk to the bird watchers I assure you they wont agree to TNR only because they cats are let back out to hunt the birds again. So now matter how you put it TNR has its good sides and bad sides. I personally feel bad for the birds too thats why I feel ALL cats SHOULD be fed by people, they are NOT wild animals and dont belong in the wild. If they are fed by people, have shelter and get vaccinated/medication, but still live in the wild, then I think thats ok because they wont have to hunt as many wild animals, so then i think thats fair to both cat and wild animal, like a compromise. Cats may be great hunters but its not there fault we let this happen to them and they should all have a safe place to live, and not ever have to worry again about dodging cars,bad weather, or being attacked by loose dogs, or bigger wild animals. Then you also have people poisoning them and shooting them, but thats a whole other story which is not appropiate for this topic.
 

kathylou

TCS Member
Alpha Cat
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
417
Purraise
1
Location
Oklahoma
OK Wait a minute. Am I to understand that The Cat Site endorses that only breeders should have fertile cats? Ever?

What about other species? What about homeless people? I just want to make sure I understand The Cat Site's beliefs.
 

tnr1

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
7,980
Purraise
13
Location
Northern Virginia
Originally Posted by Kathylou

OK Wait a minute. Am I to understand that The Cat Site endorses that only breeders should have fertile cats? Ever?

What about other species? What about homeless people? I just want to make sure I understand The Cat Site's beliefs.
As a general rule, TCS is primarily concerned with cat welfare. Because of our strong committment to responsible cat care and treatment, we do promote and strongly encourage a pro-spay/neuter policy here. Unless you are an experienced, responsible, ethical breeder of pedigreed cats, we do not advocate breeding. We feel strongly that you should spay and neuter your pets so it should not at all surprise or offend you when we tell you so in our replies to your posts.
 

tnr1

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
7,980
Purraise
13
Location
Northern Virginia
Originally Posted by keith p

Im not trying to say kill them? But if we dont get enough trapped and fixed we will have greater problems with more being born. I support TNR but then again you then support the cats killing local wildlife to eat? Not all feral cats released back after TNR are ever fed again by people, and if you talk to the bird watchers I assure you they wont agree to TNR only because they cats are let back out to hunt the birds again. So now matter how you put it TNR has its good sides and bad sides. I personally feel bad for the birds too thats why I feel ALL cats SHOULD be fed by people, they are NOT wild animals and dont belong in the wild. If they are fed by people, have shelter and get vaccinated/medication, but still live in the wild, then I think thats ok because they wont have to hunt as many wild animals, so then i think thats fair to both cat and wild animal, like a compromise. Cats may be great hunters but its not there fault we let this happen to them and they should all have a safe place to live, and not ever have to worry again about dodging cars,bad weather, or being attacked by loose dogs, or bigger wild animals. Then you also have people poisoning them and shooting them, but thats a whole other story which is not appropiate for this topic.
Ah...I see you have raised the "killing birds" argument...fair enough, here is another post from Nathan Winograd regarding that:

Countering the predation issue
Question from Cathy:
I know you have addressed the wildlife predation issue before, but I was wondering if you could give your top arguments of what you would say when people bring up this discussion? The reason I ask is that our group is working on developing a TNR program but we have one guy with a wildlife degree who always quotes these studies about the decimation on the wildlife population by these non-indigenous cats and how they must be removed. Some people give him credibility because of his degree, and I'd like to have some short, well thought out responses.
Response from Nathan:
One of the golden rules of advocacy is to tailor your response to your audience. You do not want to sound like an encyclopedia, nor do you have to get overly detailed, nor do you have to know the intimates about every study. Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. You are, in the end, an advocate. Respond succinctly, in a straightforward and thoughtful manner.

My favorite strategy is to write a detailed, scientific position paper, which is sent out to people in the community - the media, commissions, city council, friends, allies, other groups, VIPS, caretakers, whoever your target audience is. But when I make speeches, when you actually go before the commission, or council, or are interviewed by a reporter, I make a different argument - one of compassion, and lifesaving. That two-pronged approach (scientific analysis on paper to rebut the claims of Mr. Wildlife Degree in your community, and a broad message of showing kindness to cats in person) is effective.

I always start with the efficacy of TNR for all the reasons I won't repeat here, how it works, how it reduces impounds and deaths in shelters, how it protects public health. I always end with the humane argument, how the cats are out there through not fault of their own and how we can choose kindness over killing. In the middle are the nuts and bolts:

1. The starting point of any analysis in assessing wildlife predation is a two fold inquiry:

a) does the species exhibit predatory behavior?

b) how much? In other words, does the predatory behavior adversely affect the prey populations? "In biological systems it is insufficient merely to have found one animal will eat another, that is what predators do. The more important question is whether that is predation within normal limits." (Tabor, The Wild Life of the Domestic Cat, Arrow Books, 1983.) In short, is there evidence that cats actually negatively impact the prey populations?

Paul Errington identifies the problem: "Preying upon a species is not necessary synonymous with controlling it or even influencing its numbers to any perceptible degree. Predation which merely removed an exposed prey surplus that is naturally doomed is entirely different from predation the weight of which is instrumental in forcing down prey populations or in holding them at given approximate levels." (See Ellen Berkeley, Maverick Cats: Encounters with Feral Cats, New England Press, 1992.)

2. The studies cited by Mr. Wildlife Degree not only utterly fail to address the impact of cat predation, but they are severely flawed in their methodology. (I SAY THIS WITH A FAIR DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE, BECAUSE EVERYONE ON THE ANTI-CAT CITE USES CHURCHER'S STUDY IN ENGLAND AND THEN COLEMAN'S STUDY IN WISCONSIN FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT CATS ARE DECIMATING BIRDS).

Churcher looks at what kind of prey cats were bringing home in an English Village. He then extrapolated from that to come up with how many cats were killing birds across Great Britain. So, for example, if 10 cats bring in 100 birds, then 1,000 cats kill 10,000 birds, and so on. By guessing as to how many cats were in Great Britain, Churcher concluded with an astronomical number of killed birds. But is science really that simple? For one, how did the birds die? did the cats kill them? were they road kill? were they fledglings who would have died anyway? was there any indication of disease in the prey? was the catch freshly killed or were they dead for days? Being scavengers more than predators, few cats would pass up injured or dead birds? In fact, Churcher has no qualitative information whatsoever. All of this missing information could have been supplied with little additional effort.

For example, two French researchers Moller & Eritzoe examined birds killed by cats vs. those that met accidental deaths by crashing into windows. They examined the birds for various factors, the most significant of which was the health of the bird. They found that while windows were non-discriminating and killed healthy and sickly birds equally, the birds cats killed were significantly sicklier than those who crashed into windows, with 70% of them slow movers and fledglings!

But more importantly, Churcher ignores that several hundred birds in his village must die each year to maintain a stable population, that the highest number of birds brought home were at the time of the first broods (lots of already doomed fledglings), and that the village's bird density was 9 x higher than the rest of Britain?

So taken together, what does Churcher actually prove? "Taken together, these elements suggest another interpretation: cats are simply weeding out birds from an overcrowded population. Nor are they apparently catching healthy birds at their peak of winged life; wintertime is most stressful on birds that are old or sick, and fledglings tumbling down from nests could account for the high count in early summer. And with only 130 dead sparrows recorded by Churcher, the cats kill - or find - less than half the numbers that must be annually culled to sustain their populations." (J. Elliott, "Of Cats and Birds and Science: A Critique of the Churcher Study," 1994.)

Two years after that original "study," all pretensions of scientific objectivity disappear. In his second paper, he describes cats as "ruthless killers", predation as "the slaughter", while prey is a "luckless mouse", or a "very frightened baby rabbit". Is this science?

Coleman in Wisconsin is even worse. In his paper, "Cats and Wildlife: A Conservation Dilemma", Coleman states that "Recent research suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year", citing footnote 10. And what is footnote 10? An article in Wisconsin Natural Resources written by HIMSELF. Coleman cites himself. So let's look at the article. What does it say? "Here are our best GUESSES at low, intermediate and high ESTIMATES of the number of birds killed by rural cats in Wisconsin" BASED ON THE SAME OVERSIMPLIFIED, HGH SCHOOL LEVEL FORMULA THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED IN THE CHURCHER STUDY. For one, it is not RESEARCH. It is a GUESS. Second, there is no basis for the number of cats he GUESSES live in Wisconsin. Third, is a range from 8 to 217 million a statistically valid range? Absolutely not. It shows a shockingly low level of scientific rigor and confidence. Finally to get at his low and high estimates, he ASSUMES cats kill rate is 20% on the LOW end and 30% on the HIGH end. Is this fair? Studies in nine states had the range as "Few" on the Low end to 3% and 20% on the high end. If you eliminated the Few and the 20% which are off the curve, it would be a 3% range to 14% on the high end for percentage of total prey being birds. A New Zealand study had it pegged at 5% by scat analysis, in Australia it was 5.2%, and another study in New Zealand had it at 4.5% in only 12% of the cats! Coleman's numbers are off the charts and over inflate his "findings". But even then, he is making assumptions that aren't valid: he assumes millions of cats, he assumes they are all allowed outdoors, he assumes they are all young and agile and able to hunt equally, and he assumes each one is regularly killing birds despite the fact that as many as 50% of people do not let their cats outdoors, that American cats are getting fatter and less agile, that American cats are living longer and cannot hunt as well as they get older, and that some cats are just lazy or lousy hunters.

Coleman is a guess, not a study. It is, worse, a bad overly inflated guess. In an interview with a reporter in 1994, even Coleman admitted as much: "The media has had a field day with this since we started. Those figures were from our proposal. THEY AREN'T ACTUAL DATA; that was just our projection to show had bad it might be." But that hasn't stopped anti-cat groups from using the stuff as if it was handed down from Mt. Sinai.

3. There is a large body of scientific literature that is ignored by Mr. Wildlife Degree, precisely because it contradicts his conclusions.

Roger Tabor found that cats have low success as bird hunters and that the bulk of their diet is garbage, plants, insects, and other scavenger material. In short, cats are not impacting bird populations on continents. Fitzgerald & Karl found that "cats suppress populations of more dangerous predators such as rats and thus allow denser populations of birds than would exist without them". Robert Berg found that cats were not impacting quail population in San Francisco even though quail nest on the ground. Mead found no evidence that cats are impacting overall bird populations. Colemand & Brunner concluded that, "The common belief that feral cats are serious predators of birds is apparently without basis." A Worldwatch Institute 1994 Study found that birds are in decline due to drought, habitat loss, over trapping, and water pollution. Cats are noticeably absent as factors. A 1988 study by the University of Georgia blamed forest fragmentation across Southern U.S. for decimating songbirds. A Colorado Wildlife Dept. study in 1994 blamed drought. National Geographic lined declines to poisons in environment, particularly lawn care products.

4. TNR actually helps meet the goals of Mr. Wildlife Degree because... (Here I would note all the reasons I mentioned in past posts, which I won't repeat here, about the alternative being do nothing, meaning cats are breeding, roaming and foraging for food, I would note that neutering significantly reduces roaming which means less contact with wildlife, and I would note that even if the cats were killed, other cats would move in to fill their territorial void left by cats). Less cats, controlled feeding, means less hunting. Here, you might also note that many studies have found that upwards of 75% of birds killed by cats are non-native starlings which compete with native birds for habitat, so that the net effect of cat predation may actually be complementing the goals of native species advocates.

5. Where does it end? If we must kill cats because they kill birds, where do we draw the line? (Some think this argument is silly, but I have found it very useful, as the media tend to like it a lot.) A lot has been written about the supposed controversy surrounding feral cats, much of it of dubious value. Common sense, not statistics or hard-line arguments, could have pointed the way, as it did as early as 1949 when then-Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, vetoed a bill to restrain cats: "We are all interested in protecting certain varieties of birds. That cats destroy some birds, I well know, but I believe this legislation would further but little the worthy cause to which its proponents give such unselfish effort. The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. In my opinion, the State of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency." So why, 50 years later, is Mr. Wildlife Degree still belaboring the point?

6. Indigenous vs. non-native wildlife. Mr. Wildlife Degree's proposal to round up and kill cats because they are "non-native" is based on a troubling belief: value comes from lineage, and worth as a species stems from being here first. The belief that some species of animals are worth more than others because they were here first is backward thinking and shortsighted. But it is hardly surprising. The call for extermination of animals in the name of protecting others deemed more worthy by some arbitrary standard is not new. "Cats kill birds, so we must kill cats." This is the banner under which Mr. Wildlife Degree and other native species advocates have long rallied to label cats as "pests" of our cities and "invasive non-native" intruders in our parks and countryside.

But cats aren't the only ones to be targeted for slaughter in the name of protecting other species or preserving "native" habitats. They have been joined at different times and in different places by red foxes, gulls, cowbirds, elk, sea lions, coyote, mountain lions, ravens, skunks, raccoons, wild horses... the list goes on. Referred to as "garbage animals","alien" species, "weeds", and "vermin", these creatures have become scapegoats for the massive habitat destruction, environmental degradation, and species extinction causes by one species and one species alone: humans.

For nativists, the point is clear: the lives of these animals don't count, and therefore they can and should be eliminated to protect more important species and to preserve "natural" environments. Had we honored and preserved life, had we treated all animals - cats, birds, and every other creature who shares our planet - with the respect they each deserve, we might have spared many of the species now lost forever.

To us, there are no "garbage" animals and slaughter and death aren't the tools we need to preserve life. To do that - to preserve the life of all animals - we believe we must honor and preserve the life of each.

I hope that is a helpful starting point.

I feel ALL cats SHOULD be fed by people, they are NOT wild animals and dont belong in the wild.
Cats started out wild...we domesticated them. There is a difference between a stray cat who has never experienced the outdoors and does rely heavily on human intervention and then there are the feral cats who (like it or not) have managed to provide a life for themselves. TNR helps to reduce the numbers through spaying/neutering and natural attrition.

Also..if you are a bird lover....the number one killer of birds is the destruction of their habitat..not cats:

http://www.defenders.org/defendersma...tsongbird.html

Cats have just been an easy scapegoat for individuals who would prefer that all cats remain indoors.

Katie
 

tnr1

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
7,980
Purraise
13
Location
Northern Virginia
Originally Posted by keith p

Like I said it has its pro's and con's, I guess im in the middle I want neither cat nor bird to die. The article was very interesting though.
Then if you don't want birds to die....stop the destruction of the rain forest...for that matter....birds die at a greater rate by hitting into windows, so petition that all building windows be changed. The point is...let's stop blaming cats for something they aren't responsible for.

Below is except from Stray Cat Advocacy site:

http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/html/cat_predation.html


Glass Windows. Bird Deaths a year: 100 to 900+ million - Dr. Daniel Klem of MuhlenbergCollege has done studies over a period of 20 years, looking at bird collisions with windows. His conclusion: glass kills more birds than any other human related factor.
Hunting. Bird Deaths a year: 100 + million - According to the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service, more than 100 million ducks, geese, swans, doves, shorebirds, rails, cranes, among others are harvested legally each year.
House Cats: 100 million - (though we take issue with the studies that provide this conclusion. Please see our article “Feral Cat Predation Examined,†by Christine Oâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]Keefe, PhD, above).
Automobiles & Trucks. Bird Deaths a year: 50 to 100 Million - Scientists estimate the number of birds killed by cars and trucks on the nation's highways to be 50 to 100 million a year. Those statistics were cited in reports published by the National Institute for Urban Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Electric Transmission Lines. Bird Deaths a year:up to 174 million - Estimates made by the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service demonstrate millions of birds die each year as a result of colliding with transmission lines.
Agriculture (Pesticides). Bird Deaths a year: 67 million - Pesticides likely poison an estimated 67 million birds per year according to the Smithsonian Institution. Cutting hay may kill up to a million more birds a year.
CommunicationTowers. Bird Deaths a year: 4 to 10 million - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that bird collisions with tall, lighted communications towers, and their guy wires result in 4 to 10 million bird deaths a year.
Oil and Gas Extraction. Bird Deaths a year: 1 to 2 million - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that up to 2 million birds died landing in oil pits to bathe and drink in 1997. Fish and Wildlife says netting has improved that situation somewhat. There are no overall estimates for the number of birds affected by oil and gas spills, and oil and gas extractions (and transport.)
If you have trouble with the above link, please copy and paste this web address directly into your browser: http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

I am a huge advocate that domesticated cats be indoors or if they are to be indoors/outdoors that they either be taken outdoors on a leash or provided an outdoor enclosure. I believe we are making great strides in that area.

Katie
 

kathylou

TCS Member
Alpha Cat
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
417
Purraise
1
Location
Oklahoma
Wow. There are some really good issues to discuss here. I guess I like cats the best, but I realize it's an entire ecosystem, and it's humans that cause most of the problems, and it's humans that probably need to solve those problems.

I also am aware that a large percentage of pet owners are irresponsible and shouldn't have kittens. On the other hand, I have heard of quite a few kitten mills, and those are apparently licensed breeders who shouldn't be.

I am very interested in doing the right things and making this world a better place for all the beautiful sweet loving creatures out there who have done nothing wrong and deserve a good life.
 

tnr1

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
7,980
Purraise
13
Location
Northern Virginia
On the other hand, I have heard of quite a few kitten mills, and those are apparently licensed breeders who shouldn't be.
That is why TCS only advocates those breeders who are responsible. Obviously a kitten mill would not fit that catagory.

Katie
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34

darla s

TCS Member
Thread starter
Adult Cat
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
102
Purraise
2
My daughter still has her cats. She is having them neutered, but she is still looking for them an indoor home. She can't stand the thought of them not ever getting petted and loved. I also wanted to mention the woman that takes the animals from the shelter to keep them from being put down also takes female cats. She takes in the ones that are left at the last minute. I misunderstood my daughter. She has them spayed and neutered before adopting them out. When I talked with her she said last week a woman brought a cat and her kittens and their eyes were not even open. She picked them up from the shelter. For now that is all I know on this.
 
Top