How to rehome mature cat that either needs a new home or gets the needle?

[Anonymous]

11:24 again. still LOLing. "bad people!" I mean, not even the most strident breastfeeders or anti-circumcisers will go that far. Even in the mommy war threads, there is SOME acknowledgement that different people have a right to make decisions about their kids that reflect their different values and lifestyles. But when it comes to PETS? All that's out the window, and anyone whose pet doesn't die in their arms is a Bad Person. Nuance be damned!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11:24 again. still LOLing. "bad people!" I mean, not even the most strident breastfeeders or anti-circumcisers will go that far. Even in the mommy war threads, there is SOME acknowledgement that different people have a right to make decisions about their kids that reflect their different values and lifestyles. But when it comes to PETS? All that's out the window, and anyone whose pet doesn't die in their arms is a Bad Person. Nuance be damned!

Still "LOL'ing? You sound a little. . .slow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

YOU are missing a point. (NP here.) There are a few patterns in the life cycle of a pet: young (cute and cuddly); older (maybe starts having health problems; maybe starts making messes). When you get a pet, you sign up for the cuddlieness AND the inconveniences. It's part of the whole package. Don't get a pet if you can't deal with the messes. *running away screaming now in frustration with people who want life handed to them in a nice, neat little package*

I have no doubt you really, really want this to be true, but I'm the poster who made the legal point on the last page, and I'm sorry to tell you that no matter what Joe Bob's House of Pet Rescue has you sign, it's total bullshit. That is marriage you are thinking of, when you make a vow to another HUMAN, who has the same HUMAN rights as you. Or maybe it's parenthood, when there is no vow, but a clear legal structure of responsibilities. EVEN FOR THOSE, which are commitments made to actual HUMANS, there are legal mechanisms by which those vows can be dissolved if you really want to. There is nothing like that for a pet. Pets aren't even owned as much as cars are, with registrations linking each one to a specific person. We make no such promises to our cars to take care of them throughout their decrepitude. Pets aren't cars, but they're not and never will be human. They have a right not to be abused, but not even humans have the right to be married to the same person, or taken care of by their parents, for their entire lives--the right you're claiming here for pet ownership.

I might agree w you that it's a best practice, that we SHOULD enter into pet guardianships with the lifelong expectation in mind. But it is not a crime if we don't. people in their 20s aren't known for their foresight. It is not a crime to not realize just how much couplehood and family would change one's priorities and make one not want to feed, house, and pay for care for an in-home property and happiness destroyer. The fact is it's a lot easier to make the sort of promise you want peopel to make when you're already plannign ot spend your next 20 years raising kids and caring for a spouse than when you're just out of school and have no idea what your life will be in even 5 years.

If I were you/PPs who whink like you, I'd start a campaign of encouraging 20somethings to adopt rodents (rats have a 2 year life span and are every bit as smart as cats and dogs) until they are at least partnered or own a home, and only then get a dog or cat--that is, after they've already made a long-term commitment of some kind. That'll get people a lot closer to espousing your values than these kinds of harangues of people like OP will.

And no matter how much you're trying to read it this way, no one said that there is a legal obligation to love your animals, even after your asshole new husband demands you kill them.

What we said is that there is a philosophy of commitment to animals. A moral obligation.

And that people who discard their pets because they are no longer convenient are bad people.

LOL. Thanks to black and white thinkers like you, I really do think this board is the most rigid on this entire site, and that's saying something.

"Black and white" thinkers? Are you the poster who are defining pets in the legal sense (property)? You really do see things in shades of gray, then, don't you?

Signed,
Different poster than the one you were replying to

You think I think animals are property? because I am arguing with people who think they should have more rights than humans do, because morality?

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

I'm not missing that this pattern exists. What I'm missing is why you think this pattern is acceptable.

"acceptable"? What does my personal judgment of the pattern (or yours) have to do with it? It exists. You ignore it at the pet's peril.

I once adopted a pet from PAWS Chicago, which has a Lifetime Guarantee:

"We offer a lifetime guarantee to every pet in our program. While we hope our adopters and their new pets are together for life, if something happens to you or if you can no longer care for your pet, you can rest easy knowing that every PAWS pet is welcomed back at any time."

Now that's a policy that understands and accounts for this pattern.

I'm the person who can't leave well enough alone. The reason PAWS Chicago has this policy is because they don't want people rehoming pets on their own. They don't want them to give them away free on Craigslist.

Yes, of course, working in animal rescue requires being aware of what might happen to the animals being adopted out. It's still not GOOD when 20-somethings adopt pets and then abandon them when it no longer becomes convenient to keep them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:24 again. still LOLing. "bad people!" I mean, not even the most strident breastfeeders or anti-circumcisers will go that far. Even in the mommy war threads, there is SOME acknowledgement that different people have a right to make decisions about their kids that reflect their different values and lifestyles. But when it comes to PETS? All that's out the window, and anyone whose pet doesn't die in their arms is a Bad Person. Nuance be damned!

Still "LOL'ing? You sound a little. . .slow.

hey pp...^^^^^^ you are here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

YOU are missing a point. (NP here.) There are a few patterns in the life cycle of a pet: young (cute and cuddly); older (maybe starts having health problems; maybe starts making messes). When you get a pet, you sign up for the cuddlieness AND the inconveniences. It's part of the whole package. Don't get a pet if you can't deal with the messes. *running away screaming now in frustration with people who want life handed to them in a nice, neat little package*

I have no doubt you really, really want this to be true, but I'm the poster who made the legal point on the last page, and I'm sorry to tell you that no matter what Joe Bob's House of Pet Rescue has you sign, it's total bullshit. That is marriage you are thinking of, when you make a vow to another HUMAN, who has the same HUMAN rights as you. Or maybe it's parenthood, when there is no vow, but a clear legal structure of responsibilities. EVEN FOR THOSE, which are commitments made to actual HUMANS, there are legal mechanisms by which those vows can be dissolved if you really want to. There is nothing like that for a pet. Pets aren't even owned as much as cars are, with registrations linking each one to a specific person. We make no such promises to our cars to take care of them throughout their decrepitude. Pets aren't cars, but they're not and never will be human. They have a right not to be abused, but not even humans have the right to be married to the same person, or taken care of by their parents, for their entire lives--the right you're claiming here for pet ownership.

I might agree w you that it's a best practice, that we SHOULD enter into pet guardianships with the lifelong expectation in mind. But it is not a crime if we don't. people in their 20s aren't known for their foresight. It is not a crime to not realize just how much couplehood and family would change one's priorities and make one not want to feed, house, and pay for care for an in-home property and happiness destroyer. The fact is it's a lot easier to make the sort of promise you want peopel to make when you're already plannign ot spend your next 20 years raising kids and caring for a spouse than when you're just out of school and have no idea what your life will be in even 5 years.

If I were you/PPs who whink like you, I'd start a campaign of encouraging 20somethings to adopt rodents (rats have a 2 year life span and are every bit as smart as cats and dogs) until they are at least partnered or own a home, and only then get a dog or cat--that is, after they've already made a long-term commitment of some kind. That'll get people a lot closer to espousing your values than these kinds of harangues of people like OP will.

And no matter how much you're trying to read it this way, no one said that there is a legal obligation to love your animals, even after your asshole new husband demands you kill them.

What we said is that there is a philosophy of commitment to animals. A moral obligation.

And that people who discard their pets because they are no longer convenient are bad people.

LOL. Thanks to black and white thinkers like you, I really do think this board is the most rigid on this entire site, and that's saying something.

"Black and white" thinkers? Are you the poster who are defining pets in the legal sense (property)? You really do see things in shades of gray, then, don't you?

Signed,
Different poster than the one you were replying to

You think I think animals are property? because I am arguing with people who think they should have more rights than humans do, because morality?

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at.

"More rights" - what "more rights"?

OP came on here asking for advice. Basically, saying she was going to kill the cat because her husband doesn't like the cat, if she couldn't find a new home. Then she said she couldn't get the cat a new home, because the cat doesn't like change.

She wants to kill the cat. Some of us are upset that she seems this callous toward her cat. I get it; you don't like animals and therefore it's hilarious to you that some of us do care for animals. LOLZ, right? Haha, dead pets!

[Anonymous]

When I'm very old and start peeing in my pants, I hope my family will tolerate it and buy diapers or something rather then send me out of the house.

Animals are like people. They get old and have issues. They pee, they have mental difficulties, they go blind and deaf. It doesn't mean you should throw them out.

If you can't bare responsibility for a pet, don't get one.

[Anonymous]

OP here. It hasn't been "convenient" to have this cat since approximately 2005. Conveniece isn't the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

I'm not missing that this pattern exists. What I'm missing is why you think this pattern is acceptable.

"acceptable"? What does my personal judgment of the pattern (or yours) have to do with it? It exists. You ignore it at the pet's peril.

I once adopted a pet from PAWS Chicago, which has a Lifetime Guarantee:

"We offer a lifetime guarantee to every pet in our program. While we hope our adopters and their new pets are together for life, if something happens to you or if you can no longer care for your pet, you can rest easy knowing that every PAWS pet is welcomed back at any time."

Now that's a policy that understands and accounts for this pattern.

I'm the person who can't leave well enough alone. The reason PAWS Chicago has this policy is because they don't want people rehoming pets on their own. They don't want them to give them away free on Craigslist.

Yes, of course, working in animal rescue requires being aware of what might happen to the animals being adopted out. It's still not GOOD when 20-somethings adopt pets and then abandon them when it no longer becomes convenient to keep them.

of course it's not "good," whatever that means, but do you really think OP's situation qualifies as an example of that? A pet she kept for 13 years through moves and marriage and kids, that is costing her thousands, and marital problems? this really really looks to you like "abandon[ment] when it no longer is convenient"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I'm very old and start peeing in my pants, I hope my family will tolerate it and buy diapers or something rather then send me out of the house.

Animals are like people. They get old and have issues. They pee, they have mental difficulties, they go blind and deaf. It doesn't mean you should throw them out.

If you can't bare responsibility for a pet, don't get one.

Animals have some similarities to people, but they're not the same. You can't explain arthritis to a dog or discuss when the dog would like to refuse life sustaining measures. Compassion for animals means recognizing when their lives suck for them and giving them a gentle way out, not dragging your blind, in pain, self-soiling animals through more life just because you love them so darn much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:24 again. still LOLing. "bad people!" I mean, not even the most strident breastfeeders or anti-circumcisers will go that far. Even in the mommy war threads, there is SOME acknowledgement that different people have a right to make decisions about their kids that reflect their different values and lifestyles. But when it comes to PETS? All that's out the window, and anyone whose pet doesn't die in their arms is a Bad Person. Nuance be damned!

Still "LOL'ing? You sound a little. . .slow.

hey pp...^^^^^^ you are here

Well, you go on LOL'ing, and we'll just have to accept that each of us has different outlooks on the responsibilities of pet ownership. Good luck to you and yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:24 again. still LOLing. "bad people!" I mean, not even the most strident breastfeeders or anti-circumcisers will go that far. Even in the mommy war threads, there is SOME acknowledgement that different people have a right to make decisions about their kids that reflect their different values and lifestyles. But when it comes to PETS? All that's out the window, and anyone whose pet doesn't die in their arms is a Bad Person. Nuance be damned!

Still "LOL'ing? You sound a little. . .slow.

hey pp...^^^^^^ you are here

Well, you go on LOL'ing, and we'll just have to accept that each of us has different outlooks on the responsibilities of pet ownership. Good luck to you and yours.

Snark aside, this is the only thing I ever want these threads to do. I only read and post on this forum to defend OPs like this one who are in tight spots from those would would make their spot more painful by calling them bad people just because they made a different choice. Good luck to you as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Animals have some similarities to people, but they're not the same. You can't explain arthritis to a dog or discuss when the dog would like to refuse life sustaining measures. Compassion for animals means recognizing when their lives suck for them and giving them a gentle way out, not dragging your blind, in pain, self-soiling animals through more life just because you love them so darn much.

I don't think this cat's life sucks for her. It sucks to the owner, but not the cat. 13 is not very old for a cat at all. They live till 20 often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:24 again. still LOLing. "bad people!" I mean, not even the most strident breastfeeders or anti-circumcisers will go that far. Even in the mommy war threads, there is SOME acknowledgement that different people have a right to make decisions about their kids that reflect their different values and lifestyles. But when it comes to PETS? All that's out the window, and anyone whose pet doesn't die in their arms is a Bad Person. Nuance be damned!

Still "LOL'ing? You sound a little. . .slow.

hey pp...^^^^^^ you are here

Well, you go on LOL'ing, and we'll just have to accept that each of us has different outlooks on the responsibilities of pet ownership. Good luck to you and yours.

Snark aside, this is the only thing I ever want these threads to do. I only read and post on this forum to defend OPs like this one who are in tight spots from those would would make their spot more painful by calling them bad people just because they made a different choice. Good luck to you as well.

I guess we are each trying to help her in our own way. I come on here to try to tell her of other alternatives, or what helped for me in a similar situation.

Is this the world's first DCUM kuymbaya moment?!?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:24 again. still LOLing. "bad people!" I mean, not even the most strident breastfeeders or anti-circumcisers will go that far. Even in the mommy war threads, there is SOME acknowledgement that different people have a right to make decisions about their kids that reflect their different values and lifestyles. But when it comes to PETS? All that's out the window, and anyone whose pet doesn't die in their arms is a Bad Person. Nuance be damned!

Still "LOL'ing? You sound a little. . .slow.

hey pp...^^^^^^ you are here

Well, you go on LOL'ing, and we'll just have to accept that each of us has different outlooks on the responsibilities of pet ownership. Good luck to you and yours.

Snark aside, this is the only thing I ever want these threads to do. I only read and post on this forum to defend OPs like this one who are in tight spots from those would would make their spot more painful by calling them bad people just because they made a different choice. Good luck to you as well.

I guess we are each trying to help her in our own way. I come on here to try to tell her of other alternatives, or what helped for me in a similar situation.

Is this the world's first DCUM kuymbaya moment?!?!?

I did too. I made the liquid prozac suggestion. I've reported some of the meanest posts. I've been supportive all through, op has replied to my posts a few times. For me that means arguing with people who are overly dogmatic. I posted here when I was at the end of my rope with a pet situation and people were generally horrible and refused to understand. It's cruel and unnecessary to pile on people who are already hurting with worthless "advice" like "you should never have a pet, you are a bad person" when they're here asking bc they want to DO RIGHT BY the pet.

it may be the pet forum's first kumbaya moment, but honestly, supporting people who disagree with you is one of the strengths of the DCUM parenting forums. I really believe what I said before. people casually say crap on here about pet owners who disagree w them being bad people that they hesitate to say on even the most vitriolic parenting threads. I think it is because the vast, vast, vast majority of parents understand in their hearts that different people make different choices but all love their kids. I don't see that understanding in evidence on this forum nearly as often. (and yes ppl can be nasty on the parenting threads, but it's not all nastiness. not by a long shot.)