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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

OP here. In my opinion, with respect to the cat that I've cared for over the past 13 years, sending to a no-kill group or otherwise rehoming wouldn't be kind. She hid (remained totally unseen) for a month while my husband and I were out of the country and friends came to our home to housesit. A MONTH in which she only emerged under cover of darkness to eat or use litter box; no physical sightings of her, ever, by our friends. It took her about three years to willingly allow the nanny to very briefly pet her (same nanny, there four to five days/week, very gentle and kind). New home = cat in terror for an extended period of time.

If we go the euthanasia route, we'd do it at home (already researched and it's available, even same day). Forcing Pet Prozac on kitty does not seem particularly kind for this animal either, as she is fearful of anyone trying to capture her and force her to do ANYTHING. (So, in order to make my cat happy, I have to first, on a daily basis, make her scared and unhappy...makes no sense to me.)

I've been a pet owner for most of my adult life and it's gone just fine so far, plus or minus thousands of dollars in animal damage to my home and belongings. And I'll continue to be a pet owner. We'll get a dog when it's the right time to get a dog. We won't NOT get a dog because we had to deal with difficult late life issues with the cat. I will also plan to euthanize an old dog if it seems to be suffering or if there are not better, more compassionate options for THAT SPECIFIC ANIMAL. This is what I think some of the animal-lover PPs lose sight of: some of the "great options" presented may be great for a lot of animals, but not for every animal. I'm doing my best to consider the actual animal in front of me in making decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll have the dog until it's an inconvenience. Don't .

+1 What if the dog has accidents in the house?

+2
A puppy is almost guaranteed to have accidents. An older dog may become incontinent, unable to climb stairs, etc while otherwise remaining in decent health. Then what?

[Anonymous]

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.

Actually quite a lot of people said "I live in filth, why can't you?"

[Anonymous]

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*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll have the dog until it's an inconvenience. Don't .

+1 What if the dog has accidents in the house?

+2
A puppy is almost guaranteed to have accidents. An older dog may become incontinent, unable to climb stairs, etc while otherwise remaining in decent health. Then what?

Only on this board is incontinent and crippling immobility considered "in decent health". Perfect example of human wanting to cling to pet when pet is suffering.

[Anonymous]

I've been a defender of you on the thread PP, and wanted to make just one point about Prozac. it doesn't have to be in anxiety-inducing pill form. I put liquid prozac on an anxious cat's food (dry and wet) for years and he loved it. I never tried feeding it directly (with a syringe), but it clearly tasted good to him, so I could have tried that and it might have worked. The prozac really did him a lot of good. So don't rule it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll have the dog until it's an inconvenience. Don't .

+1 What if the dog has accidents in the house?

+2
A puppy is almost guaranteed to have accidents. An older dog may become incontinent, unable to climb stairs, etc while otherwise remaining in decent health. Then what?

Only on this board is incontinent and crippling immobility considered "in decent health". Perfect example of human wanting to cling to pet when pet is suffering.

Wow, can you not be more wrong. Yes, some humans make their pets live too long. But animals can be incontinent at any stage in their life, or have accidents, at any time. This would be a MAJOR problem for OP and, more to the point, OP's husband. #timetogiveupondreamofhavingadog

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll have the dog until it's an inconvenience. Don't .

+1 What if the dog has accidents in the house?

+2
A puppy is almost guaranteed to have accidents. An older dog may become incontinent, unable to climb stairs, etc while otherwise remaining in decent health. Then what?

Then you euthanize when it becomes too difficult to help them.

Look, I am an animal lover, too. I have carried elderly dogs outside every few hours so they can go to the bathroom. I have done months of SC fluids for a cat who had kidney disease. But at some point, it's not sustainable anymore, and it's kinder to euthanize the pet. They don't fear death, and keeping them alive when they can't move around or have to soil themselves is actually incredibly selfish.

[Anonymous]

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.

OP here. In my opinion, with respect to the cat that I've cared for over the past 13 years, sending to a no-kill group or otherwise rehoming wouldn't be kind. She hid (remained totally unseen) for a month while my husband and I were out of the country and friends came to our home to housesit. A MONTH in which she only emerged under cover of darkness to eat or use litter box; no physical sightings of her, ever, by our friends. It took her about three years to willingly allow the nanny to very briefly pet her (same nanny, there four to five days/week, very gentle and kind). New home = cat in terror for an extended period of time.

If we go the euthanasia route, we'd do it at home (already researched and it's available, even same day). Forcing Pet Prozac on kitty does not seem particularly kind for this animal either, as she is fearful of anyone trying to capture her and force her to do ANYTHING. (So, in order to make my cat happy, I have to first, on a daily basis, make her scared and unhappy...makes no sense to me.)

I've been a pet owner for most of my adult life and it's gone just fine so far, plus or minus thousands of dollars in animal damage to my home and belongings. And I'll continue to be a pet owner. We'll get a dog when it's the right time to get a dog. We won't NOT get a dog because we had to deal with difficult late life issues with the cat. I will also plan to euthanize an old dog if it seems to be suffering or if there are not better, more compassionate options for THAT SPECIFIC ANIMAL. This is what I think some of the animal-lover PPs lose sight of: some of the "great options" presented may be great for a lot of animals, but not for every animal. I'm doing my best to consider the actual animal in front of me in making decisions.

Dude, you are the one who asked for help finding a new home for your cat. With the alternative that the cat "gets the needle." Obviously, the "needle" was the option you wanted all along. I really don't know why you even started this thread, other than to get those of us who are actually committed to our animals all kinds of worked up and invested in your family.

If that's what it was, fine trolling. Fine trolling indeed.

[Anonymous]

I volunteer for a rescue organization and we share "do not adopt" lists with other rescues and shelters. How I wish I knew OP's name so we could put them on the list.

(However, then they would probably just go BUY an animal like the other yahoos who do that. Actually, they probably are intending to do that in the first place. Sigh. Why do I even try.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been a defender of you on the thread PP, and wanted to make just one point about Prozac. it doesn't have to be in anxiety-inducing pill form. I put liquid prozac on an anxious cat's food (dry and wet) for years and he loved it. I never tried feeding it directly (with a syringe), but it clearly tasted good to him, so I could have tried that and it might have worked. The prozac really did him a lot of good. So don't rule it out.

Thanks - this is helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll have the dog until it's an inconvenience. Don't .

+1 What if the dog has accidents in the house?

+2
A puppy is almost guaranteed to have accidents. An older dog may become incontinent, unable to climb stairs, etc while otherwise remaining in decent health. Then what?

Then you euthanize when it becomes too difficult to help them.

Look, I am an animal lover, too. I have carried elderly dogs outside every few hours so they can go to the bathroom. I have done months of SC fluids for a cat who had kidney disease. But at some point, it's not sustainable anymore, and it's kinder to euthanize the pet. They don't fear death, and keeping them alive when they can't move around or have to soil themselves is actually incredibly selfish.

No doubt about it in those issues. But it sounds like her cat only was a little stressed (understandably, given the sound of their household) and/or couldn't make it over some low threshold to the box? Would you say time to euthanize? 13 is not old for a cat with no other health problems, as OP has said she/he has gotten clean bill of health from vet.

[Anonymous]

I could never talk about my precious pets the way you speak of your cat.

[Anonymous]

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.