Fences - Cats - DIY?

In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in her
suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread impressions...
cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know have the
following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do it, then nobody
should do it, so we should make a law that forbids anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body. You
want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the attack
on government as increasing corporate power.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-pe...build-the-amer
ican-dream/

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

On Aug 24, 5:51*am, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:









dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in her
suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread impressions...
cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know have the
following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do it, then nobody
should do it, so we should make a law that forbids anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body. You
want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian.

****In the immortal words of Samuel Goldwyn:

INCLUDE ME OUT!!! (apocriphyl - apocryphil - apocryphal) I am a
thinking adult, not a whining overgrown child.

At the slightest whiff of Libertarianism, I take a long hot shower.

But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the attack
on government as increasing corporate power.

****Uh...since the government is pretty much sold out to Our Corporate
Masters anyway, the only ones getting hurt are the most vulnerable.
You know who they are...unless you exist in a separate universe like
Mitt.

dgk wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in her
suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread
impressions... cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know
have the following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do
it, then nobody should do it, so we should make a law that forbids
anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body. You
want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the attack
on government as increasing corporate power.

In my experience, I find that liberals will choose government over
individuals or corporate entities. For example, if a corporate entity bribes
a government official, the liberal is most likely to immediately blame the
corporate entity, whereas, I will find the government official to be most
despicable. After all, corporations have to compete, and if they suspect
their competition of bribing the government, then they are forced to do
likewise. But our representatives are expected (by me) to be not corrupted.
They have the public's trust, and are most culpable in my mind...

Billy wrote:
In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in
her suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread
impressions... cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know
have the following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do
it, then nobody should do it, so we should make a law that forbids
anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body.
You want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the
attack on government as increasing corporate power.

Well, what do you think about the following: The government socializes
medicine, and makes laws forcing hospitals to take care of anyone whether
they are insured or not. - Then after a while, they say, "Since we are
giving medical care at the taxpayer's expense to all who need it, we insist
that you don't enguage in any activities that are dangerous to your health,
such as driving without a seat belt, riding your cycle without a helmit, or
smoking/eating the wrong foods that may incur health problems that we will
have to take care of." IOW, they first socialize something, and then use
their socialization as an excuse to control it.
Suppose, for example they were to finance eternary clinics with the
taxpayers money. Then, after letting that saettle in for a while, they say,
"You may no longer let your cats roam free, because they may become injured
by the dangers of freedom and this will impoact the tax funds. Therefore we
are drafting a law that demands that everyone keep their cats locked up at
all times."

I think that if you could poll people on this, all the one3s who agreed with
such a law would be liberals. (At least, that's where my money would go.)

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in her
suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread impressions...
cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know have
the
following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do it, then nobody
should do it, so we should make a law that forbids anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body. You
want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the attack
on government as increasing corporate power.

I am a liberal and although I dislike politics, if I had to choose a party I
guess libertarian would be the one I would identify with the most. There
are some things that they are for that I am not although what it is now
escapes me.

I think for the most part people should be allowed to do what they want to
do provided they are not hurting anyone, including themselves. I do dislike
guns. I personally know too many people who have been permanently injured
or even killed by them. Yes, stupid accidents. But accidents that wouldn't
have happened if there were no gun. I do know some people are into hunting.
I am not. I guess that is their right. And I guess an exception would have
to be made there. Obviously police and military need weapons. I guess I
really just don't want to think about it. Things like this make my brain
hurt.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Billy wrote:
In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in
her suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread
impressions... cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know
have the following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do
it, then nobody should do it, so we should make a law that forbids
anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body.
You want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the
attack on government as increasing corporate power.

Well, what do you think about the following: The government socializes
medicine, and makes laws forcing hospitals to take care of anyone whether
they are insured or not. - Then after a while, they say, "Since we are
giving medical care at the taxpayer's expense to all who need it, we
insist that you don't enguage in any activities that are dangerous to your
health, such as driving without a seat belt, riding your cycle without a
helmit, or smoking/eating the wrong foods that may incur health problems
that we will have to take care of." IOW, they first socialize something,
and then use their socialization as an excuse to control it.
Suppose, for example they were to finance eternary clinics with the
taxpayers money. Then, after letting that saettle in for a while, they
say, "You may no longer let your cats roam free, because they may become
injured by the dangers of freedom and this will impoact the tax funds.
Therefore we are drafting a law that demands that everyone keep their cats
locked up at all times."

I think that if you could poll people on this, all the one3s who agreed
with such a law would be liberals. (At least, that's where my money would
go.)

I am against socialized medicine because I know people who live in countries
that have it and I do not think and they do not think they are getting good
care. Yes, some have no problems. But I have one friend who has had such
problems that she could write a novel on it. Of course one doesn't have to
have socialized medicine to have problems. I have had enough here in the
USA.

My same friend who has the medical problems lives in a rural area and there
is no other house for miles around. She lets her cats and her dog run free.
The only car they might get hit by is by her, her mom or a visitor. But
there are wild animals out there.

So if you're going to let your cat run free and it gets hit by a car or
killed or injured by some other cat who is also running free or some wild
animal... I just don't want to hear about it!

It would be a different story if a house cat got loose and out of the house
on its own. I do know this happens. But for a person to let it out loose?
And then come whining to me because it was flattened by a car? Or eaten by
a coyote? And yeah, that has happened. That then is your own fault, IMO.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
dgk wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in her
suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread
impressions... cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know
have the following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do
it, then nobody should do it, so we should make a law that forbids
anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body. You
want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the attack
on government as increasing corporate power.

In my experience, I find that liberals will choose government over
individuals or corporate entities. For example, if a corporate entity
bribes a government official, the liberal is most likely to immediately
blame the corporate entity, whereas, I will find the government official
to be most despicable. After all, corporations have to compete, and if
they suspect their competition of bribing the government, then they are
forced to do likewise. But our representatives are expected (by me) to be
not corrupted. They have the public's trust, and are most culpable in my
mind...

Oh bah! I don't choose either one. Yes, I know that we need both for
various reasons. I know there are corrupt people out there all over the
place. I also know there isn't a danged thing I can do about it. So mostly
I just stay out of it. I try to take care of myself.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:10:22 -0700, "Julie Bove"
wrote:


"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Billy wrote:
In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in
her suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread
impressions... cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know
have the following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do
it, then nobody should do it, so we should make a law that forbids
anyone from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body.
You want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the
attack on government as increasing corporate power.

Well, what do you think about the following: The government socializes
medicine, and makes laws forcing hospitals to take care of anyone whether
they are insured or not. - Then after a while, they say, "Since we are
giving medical care at the taxpayer's expense to all who need it, we
insist that you don't enguage in any activities that are dangerous to your
health, such as driving without a seat belt, riding your cycle without a
helmit, or smoking/eating the wrong foods that may incur health problems
that we will have to take care of." IOW, they first socialize something,
and then use their socialization as an excuse to control it.
Suppose, for example they were to finance eternary clinics with the
taxpayers money. Then, after letting that saettle in for a while, they
say, "You may no longer let your cats roam free, because they may become
injured by the dangers of freedom and this will impoact the tax funds.
Therefore we are drafting a law that demands that everyone keep their cats
locked up at all times."

I think that if you could poll people on this, all the one3s who agreed
with such a law would be liberals. (At least, that's where my money would
go.)

I am against socialized medicine because I know people who live in countries
that have it and I do not think and they do not think they are getting good
care. Yes, some have no problems. But I have one friend who has had such
problems that she could write a novel on it. Of course one doesn't have to
have socialized medicine to have problems. I have had enough here in the
USA.

My same friend who has the medical problems lives in a rural area and there
is no other house for miles around. She lets her cats and her dog run free.
The only car they might get hit by is by her, her mom or a visitor. But
there are wild animals out there.

So if you're going to let your cat run free and it gets hit by a car or
killed or injured by some other cat who is also running free or some wild
animal... I just don't want to hear about it!

It would be a different story if a house cat got loose and out of the house
on its own. I do know this happens. But for a person to let it out loose?
And then come whining to me because it was flattened by a car? Or eaten by
a coyote? And yeah, that has happened. That then is your own fault, IMO.


Those are the same imbeciles who let their four year old play in the
road.

Julie Bove wrote:
"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:12:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:27:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Brooklyn1 wrote:
dgk wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Gas Bag wrote:

She wants to stop her cats getting out, and other cats getting
in. To any cat "lovers" out there, my friend isn't getting rid
of her cats, nor is she trapping/baiting any of the cats in
her suburb.

Anyone who cares about their cats doesn't let them out.

Like most absolute statements, that's nonsense. Cats enjoy being
outdoors and if we really care about our cats we want them to be
happy. Safe counts but so does happy.

What good is a "happy" cat flattened with tire tread
impressions... cats are happy indoors... you're an imbecile.

Everyone, and everything, dies., What's important is enjoying what
little time you have. This is true for me, and also true for my
cats. Only a stupid liberal would trade freedom for a longer life,
and then have the gall to impose their poor choice on the rest of
the world......

Hey, I'm a liberal and I let my cats out.

Well, perhaps you are the exception... Most of the liberals I know
have the
following attitude: I wouldn't do it, and if I wouldn't do it, then
nobody should do it, so we should make a law that forbids anyone
from doing it.

I don't think that has even a hint of truth to it though. Most
liberals I know want people to do what they want. Get married to
someone of the same sex? Fine by me. Get a tattoo, it's your body.
You want to smoke pot? No problem to me. In fact, if you want to use
cocaine and you're an adult, fine by me. Just collect some tax on it.

No, most liberals are pretty libertarian. But there are limits and
problems once things affect someone else. I prefer government to
control those things rather than corporate power. And I see the
attack on government as increasing corporate power.

I am a liberal and although I dislike politics, if I had to choose a
party I guess libertarian would be the one I would identify with the
most. There are some things that they are for that I am not although
what it is now escapes me.

I think for the most part people should be allowed to do what they
want to do provided they are not hurting anyone, including
themselves. I do dislike guns. I personally know too many people
who have been permanently injured or even killed by them. Yes,
stupid accidents. But accidents that wouldn't have happened if there
were no gun. I do know some people are into hunting. I am not. I
guess that is their right. And I guess an exception would have to be
made there. Obviously police and military need weapons. I guess I
really just don't want to think about it. Things like this make my
brain hurt.

Well, as a libertarian, I have owned and carried a gun most of my life. To
be sure, gun accidents wouldn't happen were there no guns, but then, auto
accidents wouldn't happen were there no cars, either, and, like cars, guns
do have a purpose. I don't hunt, but I don't want to be killed by some
mugger or crazy person either, and carrying a gun gave me comfort and the
courage to go into some fairly dangerous places. If the world were chock
full of policemen so there was one on every corner 24-7, then guns would not
be necessary. But, unfortunately, the police can't prevent crime. There
aren't nearly enough of them for that. They can only hunt down the criminals
after the fact. So, if you want to prevent something bad from happening to
you, you have to do it yourself. When a crime is taking place there will, in
all likelihood be only two people there. You, and the criminal who is out to
harm you. So, you had better be able to defend yourself, and the only way I
know how to do this effectively is to carry a gun and know how to use it.

Julie Bove wrote:


I am against socialized medicine because I know people who live in
countries that have it and I do not think and they do not think they
are getting good care. Yes, some have no problems. But I have one
friend who has had such problems that she could write a novel on it. Of
course one doesn't have to have socialized medicine to have
problems. I have had enough here in the USA.

My same friend who has the medical problems lives in a rural area and
there is no other house for miles around. She lets her cats and her
dog run free. The only car they might get hit by is by her, her mom
or a visitor. But there are wild animals out there.

So if you're going to let your cat run free and it gets hit by a car
or killed or injured by some other cat who is also running free or
some wild animal... I just don't want to hear about it!

It would be a different story if a house cat got loose and out of the
house on its own. I do know this happens. But for a person to let
it out loose? And then come whining to me because it was flattened by
a car? Or eaten by a coyote? And yeah, that has happened. That
then is your own fault, IMO.


I have lived in both kinds of environments. Ones that are dangerous to
outside cats and ones that aren't. Right now, I live on a dead end street,
and next to a huge Christmas tree farm, and all of my cats are free to go
and come as they please. I wouldn't recommend that everyone do this, but I
know that there are some circumstancews where it is OK, so I wouldn't try to
tell everyone to do one or the other. If you lived on a farm, I think you
would let your cats go free to chase the chickens.... If there were no free
cats, then I probably wouldn't own any cats. All of my cats were free
roaming animals when I got them. They just happened to wander in one day,
liked the cut of my jib, and decided to stay. I never trapped them, and I
feel that their freedom isn't my business to prevent. If they want to leave,
they can go at any time. But hey! I am a libertarian, so what can you
expect?

If it makes you feel any better, I have found that almost all of my cats
never leave the property. They are quite content to sun themselves out on my
rear deck and are quite safe there. I have never seen a coyote or other
predatory animal on my property, although there was an incident many years
ago where I heard a loud bang, and when I looked outside, there was a large
bird of prey, (like an eagle or osprey) out on the deck, and our cat had
skeedadled through the cat door into the bedroom...
The bird was stunned, but recovered in a few seconds and flew away. I
presume that it had seen our cat (Missy) and tried to take her. But this is
very unusual, and I haven't heard of any of the neighborhood cats getting
into trouble, and the block has about ten of them, and they are all outside
cats.....