 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / January 2006Psychological cost of pet overpopulation (and euthanasia at animal shelters)
I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought the cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a recent article on euthanasia in the Nacogdoches (TX) Daily Sentinel. The animal shelter has a staff who work very hard to find homes for animals that are under their care. Even so, statistics for 2005 show that they euthanized *73 percent* of the animals that were left at the shelter (and that is actually *less* than the rate of euthanasia in many communities). The article actually concentrated on the psychological toll that is taken on shelter workers who must carry out this horrible (but necessary) task -- something that I think we seldom think about. Here is one excerpt from the article: "Shocking? Imagine how shelter director Gwen Gillespie feels. She and one other shelter employee are responsible for euthanizing hundreds of dogs and cats each month - many of which were healthy, loving animals - bagging them and depositing them in the city landfill. Gillespie's unfortunate job illuminates another aspect of massive animal euthanasia that remains largely hidden from public view - the disturbing psychological toll that killing so many healthy animals takes on the shelter personnel who perform the deed." Further, the article notes that an American Veterinary Medical Association's panel on euthanasia warned in 2000 that "constant exposure to, or participation in, euthanasia procedures can cause a psychologic state characterized by a strong sense of work dissatisfaction and alienation." Other studies "have found that people who perform animal euthanasias are an 'at-risk' population, at-risk for a variety of psychological, emotional and physical ailments such as high blood pressure, ulcers, unresolved grief, depression and even suicide." So, failure to spay and neuter -- which has led to an extreme overpopulation of cats and dogs -- brings tragedy not only to our four-legged friends but also to people who must look at wonderful, healthy animals and know that most of them are doomed. I know I am "preaching to the church choir" here because most of the contributors to this newsgroup already are aware of the necessity to spay and neuter, but I hope this will motivate some of you to encourage your neighbors to also think about the problem. You can read the full article here: http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/01/25/20060125NDSani mal.html MaryL > I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat > neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought the > cat needed to "grow fully" before having him neutered. I quoted from a I could point out the obvious: I've yet to see a tomcat have kittens. There are good reasons to neuter a tom, but population control really isn't one of them. Unless you can operate on all (or nearly all) of the breeding population it isn't going to make much difference. One intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put your money on spaying queens, first.  SignatureThe night is just the shadow of the Earth. >> I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat >> neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put > your money on spaying queens, first. This makes no sense - you seem to be arguing against your point. If one intact tom can service many queens then it would be more cost effective to neuter the tom to keep him from impregnating many queens (and in actuality is, since toms costs less to neuter than queens to spay). You are preventing "many" pregnancies by neutering "one" tom. Yes, there are other intact toms who will impregnate queens if you neuter only one, but there are also other queens who will be impregnated if you spay only one queen - that part of the argument is moot. SignatureHugs, CatNipped See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/ > >> I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat > >> neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > CatNipped It makes no sense the way you phrased it But if you have a colony of 10 males and 10 females and you trap and neuter 9 males, all 10 femles will get pregnant from the one male you didn't get. In fact I'll bet if you neuter all 10 males the females will all still get pregnant from a roaming tom that hears 10 females in heat. You need to spay as many females as possible to keep them from making kittens. Unfortunately I don't know how to trap just females so I fix what ever winds up in the trap. ron > >> I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat > >> neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > intact tom can service many queens then it would be more cost effective to > neuter the tom to keep him from impregnating many queens Actually, queens determine population- not toms. For example: 100 queens + 100 toms = 100 litters 100 queens + 50 toms = 100 litters 100 queens + 10 toms = 100 litters 100 queens + 1 tom = 100 litters 100 toms + 50 queens = 50 litters 100 toms + 1 queen = 1 litter The best solution is neuter all the cats. If you can't, neuter the queens. It will have more of an affect on population control and they will derive more health benefits. Males can track a cycling queen miles away. So neutering local females will control the local population. Phil >> >> I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his > cat [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Phil I understand that, but also know that 100 queens + 1 *NEUTERED* (former) tom = 0 litters But what it comes down to is that until *all* cats in a colony are desexed there is a chance of pregnancy either in that colony or in a neighboring colony. Spaying your queens and ignoring the toms is only moving the problem into another neighborhood. SignatureHugs, CatNipped See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/ > >> >> I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his > > cat [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > 100 queens + 1 *NEUTERED* (former) tom = 0 litters It doesn't work that way in real life. If a cycling queen can't find mates in her colony, she'll roam until she does. IOW, where there's a cycling queen, you'll find a tom. > But what it comes down to is that until *all* cats in a colony are desexed > there is a chance of pregnancy either in that colony or in a neighboring > colony. Spaying your queens and ignoring the toms is only moving the > problem into another neighborhood. I didn't say ignore the toms. This is hypothetical either/or. I said neutering the females will have a greater effect on the population than neutering males-- which it does. If all the females in one colony are neutered, intact strays and toms from another colony can't do any damage. Also, don't forget free roaming owned toms.. They're the wild cards. Even though you can neuter 2 or 3 males for the same cost of neutering 1 female, that one neutered female will have a greater effect on the population than the 2 or 3 neutered males. Urine from a cycling female makes excellent bait for trapping toms from all over the place and toms you've never seen before. Phil > I understand that, but also know that > > 100 queens + 1 *NEUTERED* (former) tom = 0 litters > CatNipped I a closed, fenced in colony, yes. In the real world nature will find a way. ron >> I just posted a message in rpca in which I urged someone to have his cat >> neutered as soon as possible. His cat is 14 months old, and he thought [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > intact tom can serve many intact queens. For population control put > your money on spaying queens, first. Please note that I said "spay and neuter." I referred to my message to someone in anecdotes who had a male cat, but I believe that as many *cats* as possible -- regardless of gender -- should be spayed or neutered. That is the only way cat population will ever be controlled, and it is also better for their health. MaryL
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.