Cat problems
Posted by: mista h on 08 September 2012
Found out this week that our moggy who is about 18 years old has got a Thyroid problem and needs to be given an Expensive tablet every day for the rest of her life. Tablet must be given whole as it is slow release.No point in sticking it in her food as she wont touch it. Spent half an hour last nite with supplied p shooter,first having to sort out the other halfs hand,blood all over the bed as moggy managed to claw a vein.
Anyone on this Forum had similar problems and any tips would be welcome as it looks like its going to be a daily nightmare. Also i cannot see anyone being able to do it for us if we go away !!
Mista H
What's the point.
We used to have a lovely old cat 'choccy' he turned up in the area and eventually adopted us , the local dogs that used to wander up our drive wished choccy had a bell, he terrified them.
I blubbed like a baby when he took his last trip to the vets.
IMO allowing pets to become obese is cruel.
UK cats are kinder to wildlife? (and what have guns got to do with it? Or the colour of one's labcoat?)
The study upon which the piece was based was undertaken by the Smithsonian Zoo, which is part of the Smithsonian Institute. Not so sure the claim of "dodgy statistics" is really valid without some more evidence.
is there proof that a cat wearing a bell kills less birds than an un-belled cat.
I heard that the bell noise did not warn birds, how would a bird learn that a bell means take flight.
UK cats are kinder to wildlife? (and what have guns got to do with it? Or the colour of one's labcoat?)
What you should be asking is what does any of this have to do with Cooper the litter-tray pooper?
The OP started this thread about concerns of care issues with his cat but you have wrongfuly [and probably deliberately] misinterpreted the ambiguity of the topic title to mean; humans who have a problem with cats.
I had a feeling the cat haters would target this thread.
Debs
UK cats are kinder to wildlife? (and what have guns got to do with it? Or the colour of one's labcoat?)
What you should be asking is what does any of this have to do with Cooper the litter-tray pooper?
I had a feeling the cat haters would target this thread.
Debs
You don't really want to know my solution to the OP's original question.
I like cats.
They taste like chicken...
My son loves chicken teriyaki, but became a little disconcerted recently when he saw the cook back behind the shop chasing stray cats in the dumpster with a meat clever.
The study upon which the piece was based was undertaken by the Smithsonian Zoo, which is part of the Smithsonian Institute. Not so sure the claim of "dodgy statistics" is really valid without some more evidence.
A few clicks of the mouse comes up with the following.
The "Study" was carried out by the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the Fish and Wildlife Service
The "Study" results where obtained by extrapolating the findings of 21 reports carried out over the past 50 years. One of these reports was written by somebody who was convicted of trying to poison cats.
A couple of questions spring to mind.
Can the 21 reports be regarded as accurate, given a lot of people writing a report "have an agenda".
Did the Smithsonian "have an agenda". Where the reports used "cherry picked"
The study upon which the piece was based was undertaken by the Smithsonian Zoo, which is part of the Smithsonian Institute. Not so sure the claim of "dodgy statistics" is really valid without some more evidence.
A few clicks of the mouse comes up with the following.
The "Study" was carried out by the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the Fish and Wildlife Service
The "Study" results where obtained by extrapolating the findings of 21 reports carried out over the past 50 years. One of these reports was written by somebody who was convicted of trying to poison cats.
A couple of questions spring to mind.
Can the 21 reports be regarded as accurate, given a lot of people writing a report "have an agenda".
Did the Smithsonian "have an agenda". Where the reports used "cherry picked"
Aggregating past studies and surveys is a common and legitimate way of making sense of information. The references seemed pretty legitimate to me. Where is the bit about the person convicted of poisoning cats?
I guess we all have an agenda. I'd prefer songbirds in the yard to a cat. But that's just me.
People see that their single decision to have a cat won't have a material effect on the native wildlife. They're right. But the aggregate effect of every "cat lover's" decision is that there may be far fewer birds and other native ceatures in our lives.
As for cats, I find them self-centred, lacking empathy and ignorant. They're a lot like me. That's perhaps why I don't like them much. But really, it isn't the cats themsleves I have an issue with. They're just cats. I have an issue with the blinkered view many cat people have: "Oh my little ball of fluff wouldn't hurt a fly".
Cats are to stop the human or feeder from getting too pompous or self aggrandising
Remember a dog thinks that because the human gives the dog food then the human is god.
Whereas the cat thinks that because the human feeds the cat therefore the cat is God.
So I guess Winki does not like competition.....
The study upon which the piece was based was undertaken by the Smithsonian Zoo, which is part of the Smithsonian Institute. Not so sure the claim of "dodgy statistics" is really valid without some more evidence.
A few clicks of the mouse comes up with the following.
The "Study" was carried out by the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the Fish and Wildlife Service
The "Study" results where obtained by extrapolating the findings of 21 reports carried out over the past 50 years. One of these reports was written by somebody who was convicted of trying to poison cats.
A couple of questions spring to mind.
Can the 21 reports be regarded as accurate, given a lot of people writing a report "have an agenda".
Did the Smithsonian "have an agenda". Where the reports used "cherry picked"
Aggregating past studies and surveys is a common and legitimate way of making sense of information. The references seemed pretty legitimate to me. Where is the bit about the person convicted of poisoning cats?
Aggregating studies may be legitimate, but meaningless if the studies are inaccurate. Or studies cherry picked to give the desired conclusions.
The Smithsonian cat poisoner
http://www.examiner.com/articl...poisoning-feral-cats
Cat story - had a great cat years ago that tragically was killed on the highway. Buried him in the back yard with a grave marker. Soon after adopted another male tabby and shortly after saw him sitting out by the gravesite for several minutes. Always thought there was some kind of communication going on! That cat ("Buster") turned out to be the best cat you could have.
The study upon which the piece was based was undertaken by the Smithsonian Zoo, which is part of the Smithsonian Institute. Not so sure the claim of "dodgy statistics" is really valid without some more evidence.
A few clicks of the mouse comes up with the following.
The "Study" was carried out by the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the Fish and Wildlife Service
The "Study" results where obtained by extrapolating the findings of 21 reports carried out over the past 50 years. One of these reports was written by somebody who was convicted of trying to poison cats.
A couple of questions spring to mind.
Can the 21 reports be regarded as accurate, given a lot of people writing a report "have an agenda".
Did the Smithsonian "have an agenda". Where the reports used "cherry picked"
and the other 20 reports were written by? Can 1 person out of 21 be described as "a lot"?
Debs
I thought our Cooper was a Fat Lump....i`ve changed my mind.