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

Forum Index » Pets

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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?

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

[b]She still shouldn't get another pet. [/b]
[/quote]

:roll: 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. [/quote]

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*[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics