What Price For Kitty?

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-02-15, -L. penned:

The following link details state-by-state, the applicable laws.

http://www.api4animals.org/47.htm


Thanks for sharing this link. Colorado's section disturbs me. It says:

Exemptions: Farming, rodeos, veterinary care.

Does that mean that farmers can overwork, underfeed, etc. their farm
animals
without any sort of legal repercussion? I hope not.


New Jersey's laws disturbs me:

"Exemptions: Farming, exhibitions, equestrian teams, pet shops."

That implies pet shops and show breeders are exempt from prosecution if
they: "tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, carries in a
cruel manner, abandons a sick or disabled animal, cruelly beats or otherwise
abuses, needlessly mutilates, or kills a living animal."

WTF?

What's interesting is "needlessly mutilates" is a *felony* which should
clearly include declawing, tail docking and ear cropping. All these
procedures are indeed needless since *none* of them benefit the cat or dog.

Phil

Phil P. wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Phil P. wrote:
snip
Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his
cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you
see
the utter
stupidity of your question?

I don't think it's a stupid question - merely a hypothetical one.



Its an assine hypothetical question because it implies a set dollar
amount
on how much our pets are worth to us and how much money a person is
willing
and/or able to spend to save their pet's life.

It's a question of practicality. Nobody has unlimited resources. Even
the richest can lose everything. When you have nothing, how are you
supposed to care for yourself, let alone an animal? Sure, you can say
"I will never be in that situation" but the truth is, you don't know -
no one does.



We
all have limits -


"We"? Don't include me in your "we".

Then why did you reply thusly when I asked you if you had a limit?:

"Of course I have a limit! I just don't know what it is because I've
never
reached it and I seriously doubt I ever will."

That's different than "not having a limit". You've just never been in
a circumstance where you've had a limit.


Therein lies one of the reasons why
the question is assine. Some of us don't set a limit on how much
we'll
spend to save our cat's life.


Many people don't think they do - but when push comes to shove, they
end up *having* to have a limit. It becomes their own survival or their
cat's survival. Of course, most of us will never reach that point,
would sacrifice everything, etc.

Hypothetical question: Are you saying you would starve yourself to
death to keep your cats alive (assuming you had no other options)? How
would that serve them?



I don't know why equating love with spending money entered the
equation.

Why? Because the question implies that a person who is willing and/or
able
to spend more than another person is willing to spend to save his
pet's
life, loves and/or values his pet more than a person who is not
willing
and/or able to spend as much.

It didn't imply that to me at all. It's merely a question of
priorities, resources, practicality, what-ifs, hypotheses...

-L.

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2005-02-15, -L. penned:

The following link details state-by-state, the applicable laws.

http://www.api4animals.org/47.htm


Thanks for sharing this link. Colorado's section disturbs me. It
says:

Exemptions: Farming, rodeos, veterinary care.

Does that mean that farmers can overwork, underfeed, etc. their farm
animals
without any sort of legal repercussion? I hope not.

What it ususally means is that the enforcement isn't there - that they
can bascially do whatever the heck they want and the cops don't persue
it. Farms are regulated by the Humane Farming Act though. Rodeos are
more of a problem.

And what the heck is up with the vet exemption?

Probably to exempt vets from prosecution for declawing, docking and cropping
because all those procedures are clearly needless mutilations because they
do not benefit the cat or dog.

NJ doesn't exempt vets - which gives an idea: I'd like to see how far I
could prosecute a vet who declaws cats. If nothing else, the publicity
might up a few people to the heinousness of the barbaric procedure.

Phil

On 2005-02-15, KellyH penned:

Yep. The vet our shelter works with does often talk people out of
euthanizing and instead surrender to us. They give us 50% off on vetting.
Also, why does the OP feel vets need to give stuff away? Most vets I know
are not rich.

And whether or not they're rich is really irrelevant, imo. I have a
real problem with anyone who tells anyone else how to spend their money
and time, or castigates them for not spending money and time on the
right things. Is it fair that some people make millions of dollars for
lip-synching catchy lyrics while others barely make subsistance to teach
inner-city kids? Well, no. But that still doesn't mean it's anyone's
business how either of them spend their resources.

I think we're all painfully aware that there are more needs in the world than
any one of us, or possibly even all of us, can address. We have poverty,
starvation, animal and child cruelty, and horrific natural disasters -- and
that's just in the US! The same is going on, often on a much greater scale,
in other countries around the world, plus war, oppression, genocide ... people
who think contraception is evil ... and then there are more subtle causes,
like civil liberty and the right to free speech ...

We all have to draw our lines. I'm not Mother Theresa, and I'm not going to
sacrifice all of my worldly possessions to help everyone else. I'm just not
that generous. I try to do what is right; I give money to the causes I can, I
donate what I can, I freecycle so that my stuff doesn't end up in a landfill.
And where I choose to draw that line is entirely up to me.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2005-02-15, Mary penned:

Lynnie is talking about the sickly saccharine rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, only
surpassed in its creepy party-line sweetness by the very icky
rec.pets.cats.community where they post in baby tale. *Gag* That is about
her speed, as she can dish it out but she just can't take it.

God forbid there be one place on the net where civility is encouraged.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

Phil P. wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Phil P. wrote:
snip
Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his
cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you
see
the utter
stupidity of your question?

I don't think it's a stupid question - merely a hypothetical one.



Its an assine hypothetical question because it implies a set dollar
amount
on how much our pets are worth to us and how much money a person is
willing
and/or able to spend to save their pet's life.

It's a question of practicality. Nobody has unlimited resources. Even
the richest can lose everything. When you have nothing, how are you
supposed to care for yourself, let alone an animal? Sure, you can say
"I will never be in that situation" but the truth is, you don't know -
no one does.



We
all have limits -


"We"? Don't include me in your "we".

Then why did you reply thusly when I asked you if you had a limit?:

"Of course I have a limit! I just don't know what it is because I've
never
reached it and I seriously doubt I ever will."

That's different than "not having a limit". You've just never been in
a circumstance where you've had a limit.


Therein lies one of the reasons why
the question is assine. Some of us don't set a limit on how much
we'll
spend to save our cat's life.


Many people don't think they do - but when push comes to shove, they
end up *having* to have a limit. It becomes their own survival or their
cat's survival. Of course, most of us will never reach that point,
would sacrifice everything, etc.

Hypothetical question: Are you saying you would starve yourself to
death to keep your cats alive (assuming you had no other options)? How
would that serve them?



I don't know why equating love with spending money entered the
equation.

Why? Because the question implies that a person who is willing and/or
able
to spend more than another person is willing to spend to save his
pet's
life, loves and/or values his pet more than a person who is not
willing
and/or able to spend as much.

It didn't imply that to me at all. It's merely a question of
priorities, resources, practicality, what-ifs, hypotheses...

-L.


And therefore a useless waste of energy. What my mother
called "borrowing trouble." For those who do not have
enough to occupy their minds with, let's imagine car
crashes. What if. Ugh. Get a life.

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

Phil P. wrote:
"-L." wrote in message

When you have nothing, how are you
supposed to care for yourself, let alone an animal?


Then the person shouldn't have a pet. Simple.

snipped non sequitur

"Connie" wrote in message
...
I don't know, if standards were set for people to have cats, ie financial
criteria and others, then perhaps the number of irresponsible owners would
go down in number, and there would not be as many strays and orphans, and
un-altered strays. Now I am not saying that only "poor" people are
irresponsible, but I do know alot of people who get free kittens out of
the
newspaper and don't alter them because they can't "afford" it. However,
with
that said, it would take additional criteria as well.

Excellent point.

One of the reasons why I strongly oppose free kittens and pups and why we
have a substantial adoption fee is to eliminate or at least reduce the
number of adoptives who can't or won't afford at least basic veterinary care
and environmental enrichment. If people are willing and able to spend
$100-$200 for a pet, they're less likely to treat the cat as a disposable
item.

I'm sure many of us have heard of assholes who didn't want to spend $300 for
veterinary care for a "$30 cat".

The worst part of animal rescue is some of the people we have to deal with.

Phil

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-02-15, Mary penned:

Lynnie is talking about the sickly saccharine rec.pets.cats.anecdotes,
only
surpassed in its creepy party-line sweetness by the very icky
rec.pets.cats.community where they post in baby tale. *Gag* That is
about
her speed, as she can dish it out but she just can't take it.

God forbid there be one place on the net where civility is encouraged.

--

Civility? Heh. Whatever you want to call it.

wrote in message
...
You are practicing 'backwards' thinking here. Why blame pet owners?
Why not instead blame VETS and animal organizations for not doing more
and properly organized pro bono/sliding scale work???

Most vets *already* subsidize neutering *themselves* as their contribution
to alleviating the overpopulation problem! For example, ovariohysterectomy
is a *major* abdominal surgery that involves the removal of entire organs.
Many if not most vets perform the surgery for less than just the anesthetic
costs alone for just about any other surgery. There are some vets, however,
that do charge full surgical and anesthetic fees for neuters. Many are in
affluent areas.

Most animal organizations do in fact offer low cost veterinary care.
However, pet ownership is not considered a necessity - unless a pet is
prescribed by a doctor. There are low cost animal clinics for low-income
pet owners, so I don't know what more you can ask for - other than free
veterinary care - which I doubt will ever happen.

Phil