 |
 | 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 / March 2004Chartreux information needed.
I am planning to get a Chartreux cat. A rare breed. Does anyone have opinions or stories about owning a Chartreux? Are they as wonderful a cat as they seem, or are there downsides I am not seeing? All info and stories would be appreciated. > I am planning to get a Chartreux cat. A rare breed. Does anyone have > opinions or stories about owning a Chartreux? Are they as wonderful a cat as > they seem, or are there downsides I am not seeing? All info and stories > would be appreciated. The most wonderful cat in the world is waiting to die at your local pound this minute. Not so fast, Mary. I just buried the greatest cat in the world. He was a black and white from the pound. What a great cat. I loved him. Despite the fact that he developed a myriad of diseases, puked 3 times a day, cost me a mint diagnosing and unsuccessfully treating his irritable bowel disease, and broke my heart by dying younger than expected - likely all as a result of poor breeding and bad genes - I loved him. My next door neighbor really loves his pound cat too. Despite the fact that it was taken away from its mommy too early and never learned to use the litterbox, and despite the fact that it was not handled enough when it was young and thus resists all human contact without biting, he still loves it. The way I see it, there are two cats in the world. One is at the pound, the other is at the breeder's cattery. BOTH are in this world and I get to choose. This time I want one whose breeding was well selected, and one who was with its mommy and well-socialized. While I realize that there are no guarantees, I at least know the cat's history, breeding stock, and rearing techniques. That, Mary, is important to me this time around. > > I am planning to get a Chartreux cat. A rare breed. Does anyone have > > opinions or stories about owning a Chartreux? Are they as wonderful [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The most wonderful cat in the world is waiting to die at your > local pound this minute. > Not so fast, Mary. I just buried the greatest cat in the world. He was a > black and white from the pound. What a great cat. I loved him. Despite the > fact that he developed a myriad of diseases, puked 3 times a day, cost me a > mint diagnosing and unsuccessfully treating his irritable bowel disease, and > broke my heart by dying younger than expected - likely all as a result of > poor breeding and bad genes. If you are thinking a cat from a breeder is going to have "better genes" in the sense that it will be healthier, I think you are sadly mistaken. It is my friends who have "purebred" cats who are always having tumors removed and all kinds of horrific problems with their cats. Left alone and not meddled with, cats tend to widen the gene pool, which is healthy. In the hands of breeders the pool generally shrinks, which is not. > My next door neighbor really > loves his pound cat too. Despite the fact that it was taken away from its > mommy too early and never learned to use the litterbox, and despite the fact > that it was not handled enough when it was young and thus resists all human > contact without biting, he still loves it. I have an adult cat from a no-kill shelter who was socialized from feral to totally loving in four months after being found a 6-month-old pregnant stray. Her toilet habits are impeccable. > The way I see it, there are two cats in the world. One is at the pound, the > other is at the breeder's cattery. The one at the cattery is there because people like you are willing to buy it even though millions of animals are suffering and being put down every day for want of a decent home. Go ahead and get your "pure-bred", genetically screwed-with cat, but don't try to justify it with these kinds of lame arguments. Isn't there an alt.pets.cats.unnatural.breeds.that.make.money.for.heartless.shitheads ? (...) > If you are thinking a cat from a breeder is going to have "better > genes" in the sense that it will be healthier, I think you are sadly > mistaken. It is my friends who have "purebred" cats who are always having > tumors removed and all kinds of horrific problems with their cats. Well, some breeds have inherent problems (e.g., flat-faced cats, Sphynxes, Manxes) but many do not. Choosing a good breeder should minimise the risk of buying a genetic fuckup. (...) > I have an adult cat from a no-kill shelter who was socialized from > feral to totally loving in four months after being found a 6-month-old > pregnant stray. Her toilet habits are impeccable. I have a moggie I adopted as an adult from a shelter. He uses his litterbox 100% of the time, though I did need to train him slightly. He scratches appropriately usually, though not always. He will barely tolerate being picked up; it has taken me one year or so to get him to the stage where I can pick him up and hold his paws. Even this he will only tolerate maybe 70% of the time. He has a relatively delicate stomach, perhaps by virtue of his time as a stray. I also have a purebred Aby. He uses the litterbox 100% of the time, and has only scratched in appropriate places. He will tolerate basically any handling at all - I can pick him up, flip him onto his back, and blow raspberries on his stomach and he'll not try to kill me. He has never bit or scratched my appendages - well, unless you count when he misses a grab for his furry mouse. You might get the latter characteristics in a shelter cat, especially if you obtained a kitten and socialised it well. Or, you might not. Now, I don't begrudge my moggie his cantankerousness, but I'm still very glad to have one cat who is completely tractable - an advantage of a purebred from a good breeder. (...) > The one at the cattery is there because people like you are > willing to buy it even though millions of animals are suffering > and being put down every day for want of a decent home. So, the people who do not neuter their animals and then let them roam are not the major problem then? The person who gives up the cat because it no longer matches their decor - they are not the problem? How about working out the ratio of purebred cats to the shelter population? > Go ahead and get your "pure-bred", genetically > screwed-with cat, but don't try to justify it with these > kinds of lame arguments. Isn't there an > alt.pets.cats.unnatural.breeds.that.make.money.for.heartless.shitheads Yes, it's right next to: alt.my.brain.was.replaced.by.cheese.and.I.missed.the.clue.bus. Subscribe! You'd be right at home there. Oh yeah - unnatural: The chartreux is a naturally occuring breed, AFAIK, and one which does not suffer from any particular health issues. Steve. > > If you are thinking a cat from a breeder is going to have "better > > genes" in the sense that it will be healthier, I think you are sadly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sphynxes, Manxes) but many do not. Choosing a good breeder should > minimise the risk of buying a genetic fuckup. Purebred cats are inbred. That is essentially the meaning of "pure bred." It is only a matter of how inbred. >> I have a moggie I adopted as an adult from a shelter. He uses his > litterbox 100% of the time, though I did need to train him slightly. > He scratches appropriately usually, though not always. He will barely > tolerate being picked up; it has taken me one year or so to get him to > the stage where I can pick him up and hold his paws. It's funny--Cheeks will let me flip her on her back and kiss her tummy, kiss her, all that stuff, and never put a claw out. However, she runs from us as though it is s reflex. If I put her food down then come near the bowl she runs. I imagine it is because that is how she and the others were trapped. Then again, she actually comes to us for affection and revels in it, sleeps on the bed every night and comes up for petting in the morning. Even this he will > only tolerate maybe 70% of the time. He has a relatively delicate > stomach, perhaps by virtue of his time as a stray. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > me. He has never bit or scratched my appendages - well, unless you > count when he misses a grab for his furry mouse. I think this is more a function of you--presumably a kind cat-loving person--rasing this cat from kittenhood, whereas I imagine with the stray you did not. Remember, we are talking mostly about HEALTH here, not temperament. See the original post. > Now, I don't begrudge my moggie his cantankerousness, but I'm still > very glad to have one cat who is completely tractable - an advantage > of a purebred from a good breeder. I think this is complete nonsense. Even if it were true, breeding for "tractability," even if possible, would breed in traits PAIRED with it--such as a susceptibility to disease. (I think temperament is more nurture than nature.) > > The one at the cattery is there because people like you are > > willing to buy it even though millions of animals are suffering > > and being put down every day for want of a decent home. > > So, the people who do not neuter their animals and then let them roam > are not the major problem then? My God, man, where do you get your reasoning skills, from Britney Spears? I didn't say that the market for "pure breeds" was the ONLY reason the cats are there. > The person who gives up the cat because it no longer matches their > decor - they are not the problem? > > How about working out the ratio of purebred cats to the shelter > population? I'll leave that to the mathematically inclined. What I will never forget is visiting the shelter and seeing all those sweet, perfectly beautiful cats packed in like sardines, yearning for a home. And the pound where they wait for death. > > Go ahead and get your "pure-bred", genetically > > screwed-with cat, but don't try to justify it with these > > kinds of lame arguments. Isn't there an alt.pets.cats.unnatural.breeds.that.make.money.for.heartless.shitheads > Yes, it's right next to: > alt.my.brain.was.replaced.by.cheese.and.I.missed.the.clue.bus. > Subscribe! You'd be right at home there. Kind of cute, almost funny, even. > Oh yeah - unnatural: The chartreux is a naturally occuring breed, > AFAIK, and one which does not suffer from any particular health > issues. "as far as you know" being the operant phrase. The world is no longer large enough for any single breed of domesticated animal to exist "naturally," without human interference. Pedigrees in pets, just as in humans, is for shallow snots. >I think this is complete nonsense. Even if it were >true, breeding for "tractability," even if possible, >would breed in traits PAIRED with it--such as >a susceptibility to disease. (I think temperament >is more nurture than nature.) Temperament is genetic, personality is nurture. Sadly, temperament in cats is inherited on the paternal side, not the maternal. Temperament = basic reactions to situations -- human-friendly, confidence, aggression Personality = unique quirks, learned responses to situations. An abused cat that was born with good temperament can overcome the learned responses to humans, but a well-cared-for cat that was not born with good temperament will always have behavioural problems. Orchid See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid << Temperament is genetic, personality is nurture. Sadly, temperament in cats is inherited on the paternal side, not the maternal. >> That's interesting. I didn't know that. I found my cat, Cory, and his littermates and mom when he was a baby. I kept him and his mom and got homes for the others. His temperament is entirely different than hers was. Interesting. Candace (take the litter out before replying by e-mail) See my cats: http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than human." (Loren Eisely) ><< Temperament is genetic, personality is nurture. Sadly, >temperament in cats is inherited on the paternal side, not the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for the others. His temperament is entirely different than hers was. >Interesting. That's what I thought when I learned of it. My second thought was 'Dammit' because the father is usually the least known factor when dealing with moggies. Of course, it's great new ammunition in the battle against all the people who let their cat get knocked up by a random tom because 'she's so sweet and so of course her babies will be sweet'. Orchid See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid (...) > Purebred cats are inbred. That is essentially the meaning > of "pure bred." It is only a matter of how inbred. It is perfectly feasible to maintain genetic strength in purebred cats - this will be especially so if the cat in question comes from a large (naturally occuring) population. Outcrossing and linebreeding are ways to maintain desired features while maintaining genetic health. Inbreeding also occurs naturally, to some extent. In fact, breeders are working to eliminate some of the genetic faults in naturally occuring breeds. The Manx would be an example of this. However, I agree that poor breeding practices can lead to genetic mush. I gather that (pet) rats are especially problematic in this regard. An overview here: http://www.petpeoplesplace.com/Care/Cats/004/17.htm (...) > Even this he will > > only tolerate maybe 70% of the time. He has a relatively delicate [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > talking mostly about HEALTH here, not temperament. > See the original post. Well, in fact I didn't really raise either from kittenhood proper. My Aby was c.6 months old when I got him, the big guy probably 1.5 yrs. I'm not going to restrict comments to health - temperament is important. Critical, in fact. How many cats are given up because their temperament did not suit the owner? How many cats are given up because the owner no longer likes their appearance? I wager the former is much more prevalent. (...) > I think this is complete nonsense. Even if it were > true, breeding for "tractability," even if possible, > would breed in traits PAIRED with it--such as > a susceptibility to disease. (I think temperament > is more nurture than nature.) First, breeding for tractability would not necessarily lead to concomitant genetic fuckupness. But really, by my tractability comment I didn't mean to imply that the tractability was entirely genetic, more that the breeder had spent the time to make the cat tractable - necessary if it were to be shown. (...) > > So, the people who do not neuter their animals and then let them > > roam are not the major problem then? > > My God, man, where do you get your reasoning skills, > from Britney Spears? I didn't say that the market for > "pure breeds" was the ONLY reason the cats are there. Hey, Britney is a master of semiconductor physics, I'll have you know: britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm > > The person who gives up the cat because it no longer matches their > > decor - they are not the problem? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > I'll leave that to the mathematically inclined. Well, the answer is - the ratio is small. > What I will > never forget is visiting the shelter and seeing all those > sweet, perfectly beautiful cats packed in like sardines, > yearning for a home. And the pound where they wait for > death. True, but even if there were no purebred cats, shelter cats would still be killed every day. The fundamental issue is reducing the supply of cats to the shelters, and destroying all purebreds will not help that significantly. (...) > alt.pets.cats.unnatural.breeds.that.make.money.for.heartless.shitheads > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kind of cute, almost funny, even. I do my best. > > Oh yeah - unnatural: The chartreux is a naturally occuring breed, > > AFAIK, and one which does not suffer from any particular health > > issues. > > "as far as you know" being the operant phrase. Well, unless someone provides evidence to the contrary, as far as I know will do me. I know that certain breeds do have some genetic problems, but I've not heard of same in the Chartreux. When it comes down to it, you will *never* stop people from buying purebred animals. Basically every available pet is bred for colours or other traits - rats, mice, cats, gerbils, dogs, sugar gliders, hamsters, whatever. Plants are bred for desirable traits, even. People want and have always wanted certain characteristics - appearance, temperament, whatever. I also think that breeding of some of the purebred cats is desirable to maintain types of cats that would otherwise disappear, at least partially through humans appearing and changing the environment. Steve. > An overview here: http://www.petpeoplesplace.com/Care/Cats/004/17.htm Thanks for the link. I do love to learnI was reading about the Chartreux breed last night, here: http://www.cfainc.org/breeds/profiles/chartreux.html Notice this part, in particular: "Chartreux kittens are generally available by reservation only inasmuch as the breed is zealously protected by its breeders and demand for these endearing cats outstrips availability. During World War II, some French breeders tried to save the breed from extinction by outcrossing to Persians and British Shorthairs. However, the original Chartreux cats that were imported to the United States came from the French countryside, and only those cats were used in breeding programs to produce and preserve the natural status of the present pedigreed Chartreux." But the very process renders it "unnatural." And the language here tells me that I am right about the motivation of many to have "pedigreed" cats. Status seeking, plain and simple. Might as well have "jaguar" or "porsche" stamped on the cat's forehead. Then: "This lovely breed was brought to the United States through the efforts of John and Helen Gamon who were committed to finding and acquiring the beautiful cats. Today, many American-bred Chartreux are being returned to French breeders, thus reducing even further their availability in the United States." And what is the function of making them "more rare," eh? Hmmmm? It is to make them more expensive. Period. More desirable to guys like the OP. Ick, Ick, Ick. > Well, in fact I didn't really raise either from kittenhood proper. My > Aby was c.6 months old when I got him, the big guy probably 1.5 yrs. > > I'm not going to restrict comments to health [I'm snipping here because your Britishness is hanging out and frankly I am embarrassed for you. :) I HATE the entire idea of pedigree, and I disagree about temperament being genetic. There is no real way to tell what creates temperament, and I sense that you buy what the breeders tell you way too easily. There is NO SWEETER cat on earth than my little common mackeral tabby stray, period. > (...) > First, breeding for tractability would not necessarily lead to > concomitant genetic fuckupness. I didn't say it would. But you know that traits come paired and clustered. So it could. And it does in many breeds. > I HATE the entire >idea of pedigree, and I disagree about temperament being >genetic. There is no real way to tell what creates temperament, >and I sense that you buy what the breeders tell you way too >easily. Here are some citations for you to peruse. "However, studies have been conducted that establish a definite link between genetics and personality. Dr. Sandra McCune, an animal behavior expert at Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition in Britain, has studied feline behavior extensively and has conducted studies on the role that a father plays in the temperament of his offspring. One such study, performed at Cambridge University, hints that paternity makes a fundamental difference in the personality of the kittens. Two different toms, one friendly and the other unfriendly, sired litters of kittens. Although the kittens had never met nor observed their fathers, McCune said, "As you would expect, the friendliest kittens were those from the friendly father." In fact, in each litter the kittens exhibited the same type of temperament as the tom who had sired them. The only way this would seem to be possible is if behavior was passed genetically from father to kitten. " http://www.thedailycat.com/netscape/mind/relationships/archive/fatherhood/ "Most inherited traits in animals are polygenic. Some examples are: conformation, type, size, longevity, disease resistance, temperament, speed, milk and egg production, growth rate, maturation and sexual maturity rate and numerous inherited diseases." http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=TUFTSBG2003&PID=5106&O=Generic "What traits (or characteristics) are inherited? The answer is almost all -- from temperament to size and coloring, as well as genetic diseases like PRA." http://www.isabellevets.co.uk/new_cat/newcat.htm > There is NO SWEETER cat on earth than my little >common mackeral tabby stray, period. As a pet owner, I might disagree with you in favour of my snuggly cuddly brown spotted tabby Bengals, but as a trainer/behaviourist I'll take another tack. :) I wasn't saying that strays and moggies can't be sweet cats. Of course they are -- before purebreds ever existed we humans were encouraging sweet human-friendly cats to breed successfully. Orchid See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid (...) > "Chartreux kittens are generally available by reservation only > inasmuch as the breed is zealously protected by its breeders ... the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But the very process renders it "unnatural." Well, all acts of conservation are unnatural in a sense. Certainly many breeds would have disappeared if humans didn't keep 'em rolling on. On the other hand, humans usually have a hand in the disappearance of breeds (and species). > And the language here > tells me that I am right about the motivation of many to have > "pedigreed" cats. Status seeking, plain and simple. Um - from who do think these people are getting their status kicks? It's hardly as if you pop down to the supermarket with your pedigree persian, and I doubt that many people would be impressed if you slipped 'hey! I've got a pedigree cat into conversations'. Mostly I think people would just not give a sh.t. The amount of 'status' gained from owning a pedi cat is, for the most part, trivial. (...) > "This lovely breed was brought to the United States through the > efforts of John and Helen Gamon who were committed to finding and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And what is the function of making them "more rare," eh? The return of the cats to France makes them more rare in the US and less rare in France. Let's try to be a bit less US-centric, eh? > Hmmmm? It is > to make them more expensive. Period. More desirable to guys like the > OP. Ick, Ick, Ick. So, what's the cost of a Chartreux then? Are they actually more expensive than the other pedi cats? Or are you just guessing? (...) > [I'm snipping here because your Britishness is hanging out > and frankly I am embarrassed for you. :) Eyup, I'd just scoffed arf a pound o tripe and some black pudding' and I were just off down t' pub for a swifty wi me whippet and a mate when a bloody colonial nicked me bike clips etc etc etc Convert to American by inserting a 'y'all' inbetween each word, and reading with a mouthful of fried okra. Anyway, I'm a highly trained Lithuanian. > I HATE the entire > idea of pedigree, and I disagree about temperament being > genetic. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong! > There is no real way to tell what creates temperament, > and I sense that you buy what the breeders tell you way too > easily. I don't buy anything that anyone says without giving it some thought. > There is NO SWEETER cat on earth than my little > common mackeral tabby stray, period. Everyone's own cat is the sweetest, no? Steve. > Well, all acts of conservation are unnatural in a sense. Certainly > many breeds would have disappeared if humans didn't keep 'em rolling > on. On the other hand, humans usually have a hand in the disappearance > of breeds (and species). Steve, I think she is saying that specific "breeds" wouldn't even exist if not for human intervention. Am I right? Same with dogs. Some breeds are so far off from wolves that they don't even seem related.  SignatureCheryl > > Well, all acts of conservation are unnatural in a sense. Certainly > > many breeds would have disappeared if humans didn't keep 'em rolling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Steve, I think she is saying that specific "breeds" wouldn't even exist if > not for human intervention. Am I right? Yes. (...) > Steve, I think she is saying that specific "breeds" wouldn't even exist if > not for human intervention. Am I right? Some would, some wouldn't. Pretty much any 'modern' breed is an invention, such as Ragdolls, Himalayans, any cross with a wildcat, Sphynxes, etc. I don't think that there any naturally occurring groups of rexed cats, either, though I could be wrong. Breeds such as the Manx, Siamese, Maine Coon, Norwegian Forest cat and such all occurred 'naturally' in a sense. Having said that, I don't think that breeders are really preserving the original types of these breeds, so the conservation argument only goes so far in reality. Steve. > Breeds such as the > Manx, Siamese, Maine Coon, Norwegian Forest cat and such all occurred > 'naturally' in a sense. MCs and NFCs are among my favorite non-moggie cats. :) I adore large cats. I still hope to "find" one in need of a home someday after my Shadow baby is gone. Hopefully that will be a long time from now. Having said that, I don't think that breeders > are really preserving the original types of these breeds, so the > conservation argument only goes so far in reality. I have nothing against people with purebred cats, I have to stress that again. But the whole "preserving" thing just irks me. When humans try to do this (white supremists spring to mind) they are bigots and scum of the earth. What really is the difference in preserving a breed of a specific species from people who want to preserve the "white race"? Hell, someday we'll all be the same color. lol SignatureCheryl >I have nothing against people with purebred cats, I have to stress that >again. But the whole "preserving" thing just irks me. It irks me too. It irks me worse when breeders try to "improve" on a breed, and I don't mean genetic health issues, I mean physical traits. Sherry (...) > MCs and NFCs are among my favorite non-moggie cats. :) I adore large > cats. I still hope to "find" one in need of a home someday after my > Shadow baby is gone. Well, MCs (of MC-alikes) are one group of cats that are quite easily available from shelters (in the US, anyway) - I have one, indeed. In fact, I generally prefer the MC mixes rather than the purebred MCs. Which is why I have one of the former. So there ye go. (...) > I have nothing against people with purebred cats, I have to stress that > again. But the whole "preserving" thing just irks me. When humans try to > do this (white supremists spring to mind) they are bigots and scum of the > earth. Not when they are preserving the whale or the Great Panda. > What really is the difference in preserving a breed of a specific > species from people who want to preserve the "white race"? Well, cat breeders don't propose that moggies should not exist. They don't, as a rule, head off to the countryside to lynch mixed breed cats. > Hell, someday we'll all be the same color. lol A good thing, and a bad thing. I like the variety in the human appearance - I'd these differences to maintain, on aesthetic grounds. However, given that racial differences in appearance seem to cause more strife than they're worth, maybe it's right that we'll all phase to some supermongrel race. Also, maintaining the appearance of different races might require restrictions on who could breed with who, which is obviously a nonsense. Hm, wandering away from the cats a bit there. Steve. > Not when they are preserving the whale or the Great Panda. Those are entire species; not a "breed" within a species. >> What really is the difference in preserving a breed of a specific >> species from people who want to preserve the "white race"? > > Well, cat breeders don't propose that moggies should not exist. They > don't, as a rule, head off to the countryside to lynch mixed breed > cats. I guess that is why I wouldn't classify them as "scum of the earth". SignatureCheryl >> Not when they are preserving the whale or the Great Panda. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I guess that is why I wouldn't classify them as "scum of the earth". One final comment on this from me (and then stick a fork in me, I'm done) is that IMO the preservation of a certain look, or physical characteristics just seems to be perpetuating the thinking that animals are nothing more than possessions to be molded on a whim. Perpetuating or preserving, or IMPROVING the /health/ is a totally different story. But why does it have to be Persians, or Siamese, or Ragdolls, or Burmese, or any of the 10s (100s?) of different breeds and not just "domestic cat"? Felis catus. <boggle> SignatureCheryl >Um - from who do think these people are getting their status kicks? >It's hardly as if you pop down to the supermarket with your pedigree >persian, and I doubt that many people would be impressed if you >slipped 'hey! I've got a pedigree cat into conversations'. Mostly I >think people would just not give a sh.t. The amount of 'status' gained >from owning a pedi cat is, for the most part, trivial. I dunno, Steve. I tend to think there *are* people who acquire a pedigreed cat as a status symbol, if only for the benefit of themselves, to illustrate to themselves that they own something beautiful and unique and unusual--whether it be a Sphynx, or Serval, or Devon Rex, or whatever. They figure out this status symbol eats, and poops and pees, and sheds, and we get it at the shelter. I've seen it plenty of times. Or they acquire the cat out of sheer impulse--"I just love Mr. Bigglesworth, I want one." Ask any shelter what happens six months after each Disney release of 101 Dalmations. Or, there are people who make informed decisions and acquire a life-long companion in the form of a purebred cat. I'm sure a good, responsible breeder can spot the difference easily, just as we try to do in the adoption interview process at the shelter. Sherry > I dunno, Steve. I tend to think there *are* people who acquire a pedigreed cat > as a status symbol, if only for the benefit of themselves, to illustrate to > themselves that they own something beautiful and unique and unusual--whether it > be a Sphynx, or Serval, or Devon Rex, or whatever. Um, yayuh! :') (...) > I dunno, Steve. I tend to think there *are* people who acquire a pedigreed > cat as a status symbol, I'd believe that there are some, but not many, surely? > if only for the benefit of themselves, to illustrate to > themselves that they own something beautiful and unique and unusual If something is owned for the benefit of the owner alone, then I wouldn't call that a status symbol per se. (...) > seen it plenty of times. Or they acquire the cat out of sheer impulse--"I > just love Mr. Bigglesworth, I want one." Now that I do believe. Steve. > (...) > > > > > I dunno, Steve. I tend to think there *are* people who acquire a pedigreed > > cat as a status symbol, > > I'd believe that there are some, but not many, surely? What do you base this upon? The naturally high-minded, secure love of beauty you see in most people? Earth to Steve! > > sriddles@aol.comkitty (Sherry ) wrote in message > news:<20040323234002.07039.00000257@mb-m16.aol.com>... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What do you base this upon? The naturally high-minded, > secure love of beauty you see in most people? Nope. The fact that a cat would be an inefficient use of money if you wanted a status symbol, especially given that most people wouldn't know a Bengal from a Bagel. I doubt that a pedi cat as a status symbol would even enter the mind of someone on the lookout for something funky to impress the neighbours with. > Earth to Steve! Green Friendly Wavelengths, Steve. >If something is owned for the benefit of the owner alone, then I >wouldn't call that a status symbol per se. Most all status symbols are for the benefit of the owner, alone. Fancy cars, diamonds, original paintings, etc. etc. Sherry > >If something is owned for the benefit of the owner alone, then I > >wouldn't call that a status symbol per se. > > Most all status symbols are for the benefit of the owner, alone. Fancy cars, > diamonds, original paintings, etc. etc. I phrased that badly. I was trying to draw a distinction between items where the benefit to the owner relies on the envy or admiration of others, and items where that is not so. For example, you might buy a really expensive guitar, but always play it in the confines of your own bathroom (good acoustics, y'see). In this case, the benefit is not gained from the reactions of others. IMHO owning a pedi cat is more this sort of 'symbol' than the in-yer-face trinkets such as fancy cars, diamonds, and the like. To gain 'benefit' from a pedi cat one doesn't need - and probably won't get - the respect and admiration of others. Steve. > I phrased that badly. I was trying to draw a distinction between items > where the benefit to the owner relies on the envy or admiration of > others, and items where that is not so. For example, you might buy a > really expensive guitar, but always play it in the confines of your > own bathroom (good acoustics, y'see). In this case, the benefit is not > gained from the reactions of others. I see what you mean. For example, I must admit that there are certain relatively expensive things I love just for the quality. A really fine leather briefcase, or wallet, for example. I love these things because I love the feel and smell of them, not because someone will gawk and say "that is a REALLY NICE BAG." And I don't buy for the brand name, just the quality. (And yes, before anyone leaps on it, I would rather have my leather bag then have people stop killing cows, bad as that is.) Cars too. If I suddenly wound up with a boatload, I might get a Jaguar just for the way it drives. Where you analogy falls down is here: cats are living things, not objects meant to exist only for our pleasure in the shapes and sizes and colors and "temperaments" we like. My sister has three Great Danes. One has a neat spotted coat, and the other lacks the distinct head ridge that is considered "good conformation" by GD breeders. Dogs like hers are usually destroyed at birth. This is what "reputable breeders do when a "below par" animal is born. I grew up with "pedigreed" animals, by the way, horses and dogs mostly. I particularly liked the mini dachshund who squatted and peed when anyone spoke to her in a high voice (and everyone did the moment they walked in because that is what we do with little dogs.) We also had a Pomeranian named Amelia Joy who danced on her back legs all the time, very cute. And we had two whippets (Leftwing and Liberal, aka Lefty and Libby) who had the most beautiful gazelle like run, with these little hops. I loved those animals but the strays were always my favorites. Like the mixed hound who brought home fully wrapped fast food burgers. I don't know if he cased fast food joints and held up the patrons or what. >My sister has three Great Danes. One has a neat >spotted coat, and the other lacks the distinct head [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Dogs like hers are usually destroyed at birth. This is >what "reputable breeders do when a "below par" animal is born. What type of crack, exactly, are you smoking and where'd you get it? Dogs like your sister's are called 'pet quality' and sold as pets for less than show prospects are sold for. While puppies may have been culled in the Bad Old Days (pre-1950s or so), it doesn't happen today. >I grew up with "pedigreed" animals, by the way, horses >and dogs mostly. I particularly liked the mini dachshund >who squatted and peed when anyone spoke to her in a high >voice (and everyone did the moment they walked in >because that is what we do with little dogs.) Submissive urination. Found in any breed (including Mixed-Breeds) in extremely submissive individuals. Slightly more common in American Cocker Spaniels for some odd reason. Dog is communicating to the person "I'm submissive to you, you're in charge" which is a perfectly normal greeting to canids -- not so acceptable to humans. >We also >had a Pomeranian named Amelia Joy who danced on >her back legs all the time, very cute. And which isn't a breed characteristic in Poms. Poms do it, Min and Toy Poodles do it, Bichons do it, small Mixed-Breeds do it, what's your point? >And we had >two whippets (Leftwing and Liberal, aka Lefty and Libby) >who had the most beautiful gazelle like run, with these >little hops. The double suspension rotary gallop. *sigh* Always a thing of beauty. Only found in the sighthounds (Greyhounds, Saluki, Afghans, Borzoi, etc) in the dog world -- the other well-known animal that uses it is the cheetah. Site with a beautiful series of photos breaking down the double suspension rotary gallop: http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/Movement/WGal.html Orchid See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid > >My sister has three Great Danes. One has a neat > >spotted coat, and the other lacks the distinct head [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What type of crack, exactly, are you smoking and where'd you > get it? Oooo. >Dogs like your sister's are called 'pet quality' and sold as > pets for less than show prospects are sold for. While puppies may > have been culled in the Bad Old Days (pre-1950s or so), it doesn't > happen today. Bullshit, at least in several cases we know of and one that she witnessed. > >I grew up with "pedigreed" animals, by the way, horses > >and dogs mostly. I particularly liked the mini dachshund [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > which is a perfectly normal greeting to canids -- not so acceptable to > humans. I wasn't trying tomake any point with regard to the peeing. We thought it was cute and hilarious. We cured it by talking to her in verrrrry deeeeeeep voices only. It worked, too. > >We also > >had a Pomeranian named Amelia Joy who danced on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Min and Toy Poodles do it, Bichons do it, small Mixed-Breeds do it, > what's your point? Um, to talk about my cute doggies? You want a hit of my crack, or maybe you have a nice little script for VALIUM around somewhere? You're sounding awfully defensive. Didn't I praise your purchased pedigreed critters enough? :') >I dunno, Steve. I tend to think there *are* people who acquire a pedigreed >cat >as a status symbol, if only for the benefit of themselves, to illustrate to >themselves that they own something beautiful and unique and unusual--whether >it >be a Sphynx, or Serval, or Devon Rex, or whatever. That may be true in some cases--especially if a certain breed of cat has been featured lately in a movie or tv program, as you note with Mr. Bigglesworth--but I don't believe it is true of the majority of people who purchase purebred animals. Of course, this is just my own experience, but it seems many of the people I know who buy one of the rarer purebred cats or dogs say it's because they love that breed--the way it looks and behaves. With the more common breeds, I think these are often impulse purchases from pet stores--those Persian kittens or Pekingese pups are mighty cute, the kids want them, so the parents pull out the credit card. They aren't status symbols--they're just cute. They figure out this >status >symbol eats, and poops and pees, and sheds, and we get it at the shelter. >I've >seen it plenty of times. Or they acquire the cat out of sheer impulse--"I >just >love Mr. Bigglesworth, I want one." Yes, but lots of non purebred pets are acquired on impulse too. >Ask any shelter what happens six months after each Disney release of 101 >Dalmations. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >we >try to do in the adoption interview process at the shelter. Yes. And as I said, I think with breeds that are less common, that take some effort to find, those who buy them generally have done some research. For example, it sounds as though the OP is seeking all the info he/she can find before acquiring a Chartreux. That doesn't seem like status-symbol seeking to me. > Well, all acts of conservation are unnatural in a sense. This is an excellent point. However, the importance of maintaining a breed that never actually occurred in any significant numbers in nature still needs to be weighed in terms of priorities with regard to the "big picture." People have been breeding selectively as long as we have had domesticated animals. Certainly > many breeds would have disappeared if humans didn't keep 'em rolling > on. On the other hand, humans usually have a hand in the disappearance > of breeds (and species). I really don't care about conserving any domesticated "breeds." Wildlife is another matter. > Um - from who do think these people are getting their status kicks? > It's hardly as if you pop down to the supermarket with your pedigree > persian, and I doubt that many people would be impressed if you > slipped 'hey! I've got a pedigree cat into conversations'. Mostly I > think people would just not give a sh.t. The amount of 'status' gained > from owning a pedi cat is, for the most part, trivial. Respectfully disagree. I think this sort of value is so much a part of you--and others--that you can't even see it. It's too close to you, and while you don't want to admit that the elephant is in the room, there is is anyway. > > And what is the function of making them "more rare," eh? > > The return of the cats to France makes them more rare in the US and > less rare in France. Let's try to be a bit less US-centric, eh? That particular Cat Fanciers web site is in English and aimed at a US market. And I do mean market. Nice hair splitting, though. :) > So, what's the cost of a Chartreux then? Are they actually more > expensive than the other pedi cats? Or are you just guessing? There is only so much time I will put into things like this, Steve. I'm not a complete fanatic. > (...) > > [I'm snipping here because your Britishness is hanging out [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Anyway, I'm a highly trained Lithuanian. :-) Come on. You know you people started this whole pedigree program when you popularized buying coats of arms in the 1500s. > You can disagree, but you'd be wrong! Demonstrate it. You cannot demonstrate that temperament is a result of genetics in cats. You just can't. you can supply all the articles you want, the fact is, as long as there are environmental factors you cannot prove where behaviors come from. Period. > > There is no real way to tell what creates temperament, > > and I sense that you buy what the breeders tell you way too > > easily. > > I don't buy anything that anyone says without giving it some thought. Ah, but the quality of the thought is important too. > > There is NO SWEETER cat on earth than my little > > common mackeral tabby stray, period. > > Everyone's own cat is the sweetest, no? You bet. :) > Steve. >I really don't care about conserving any domesticated "breeds." >Wildlife is another matter. I expect that is one reason I could never agree with you on this topic. In the opinion of some people, myself included, the preservation of some domesticated breeds is a worthy pursuit. For myself, I am interested in the preservation of breeds of historical signifigance. For example, the modern turkey produced in U.S. turkey farms bears little resemblance to the original breed domesticated and raised by early American settlers. Now, you may consider what are now called "heritage turkeys" to be status symbol domestic animals, but IMO this is a breed worth preserving due to their historic value (well, there are other reasons as well--supposedly they taste better than factory turkeys, although I wouldn't know because I don't eat meat). Thank goodness for breed conservationists such as the Society for Preservation of Poultry Antiquities. I would hate to see such breeds die out, and yet some old breeds of fowl have been close to extinction. Now, IMO I would not mind if a modern breed such as the Munchkin cat vanished, but the Chartreux, a so-called "natural" breed that dates from the 16th century, is a different matter and should be preserved. Of course, as I said, I'm interested in the preservation of antiquities and historic artifacts in general, so that is part of why I believe that "heritage" breeds of all kinds of animals should be respected and preserved. > > Well, all acts of conservation are unnatural in a sense. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be weighed in terms of priorities with regard > to the "big picture." Some of the breeds did (and maybe do still) occur in 'significant' numbers in nature. The modern, 'man-made' breeds obviously did not / do not occur in nature in this way. (...) > I really don't care about conserving any domesticated "breeds." > Wildlife is another matter. I think the disappearance of (especially) naturally occuring - and even 'historical' (wrt Yngver's posts in this thread) - cat breeds would be a shame. (...) > Respectfully disagree. I think this sort of value is > so much a part of you--and others--that you can't > even see it. It's too close to you, and while you > don't want to admit that the elephant is in the room, > there is is anyway. Well, if you let me know who I'm supposed to be impressing, I'll be sure to let them know. There's no elephants here. Although they would be a great status symbol, it's such a palaver to clean the litterbox. > > > And what is the function of making them "more rare," eh? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a US market. And I do mean market. Nice hair splitting, though. > :) Doesn't matter. Principle of conservation of cats. Whether the website is geared for the US audience or not, the cats are allegedly becoming rarer at X and thus more common at Y. Perhaps cheaper at Y and more expensive at X. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is only so much time I will put into things like this, > Steve. I'm not a complete fanatic. Well, I also cannot be arsed to find out the cost of Chartreux cats - I did have a quick webscan, but couldn't find any prices. (...) > > :-) Come on. You know you people started this > whole pedigree program when you popularized > buying coats of arms in the 1500s. Yes, that was me. I am just over 500 years old, but wearing well. > > You can disagree, but you'd be wrong! > > Demonstrate it. You cannot demonstrate that temperament > is a result of genetics in cats. You just can't. To start with, check out: Takeuchi & Houpt (2003) Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 33: 345-363 "The influence of **hereditary** and environmental factors is indispensable as the foundation on which the **temperament** of an animal is formed. Genetic research on animal temperament has experienced a turning point in recent years as a result of the development of molecular biology. In the near future, it may be possible to explain the formation process of animal temperament as the two fields share their research. We look forward to applying these research results to the development of new genetic treatment methods for problem behavior and training programs suited to the individual." Emphasis added. > you can supply > all the articles you want, the fact is, as long as there are > environmental factors you cannot prove where behaviors > come from. Period. The hoary old chestnut: It's Nature *and* Nuture, not one or t'other. (...) > Ah, but the quality of the thought is important too. Indeed. See reference above. Can you get beyond your own prejudices and accept the science...? Steve. >I think the disappearance of (especially) naturally occuring - and >even 'historical' (wrt Yngver's posts in this thread) - cat breeds >would be a shame. Historical breeds are already disappearing. Try looking at a Siamese, or a Person of fifty years ago, and look at them today. Sherry >>I think the disappearance of (especially) naturally occuring - and >>even 'historical' (wrt Yngver's posts in this thread) - cat breeds [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sherry Freudian slip? lol SignatureCheryl >> Historical breeds are already disappearing. Try looking at a Siamese, >> or a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Freudian slip? lol ROFL! Yeah, Cheryl, I have a habit of exhuming 50-year-old cats to see if they've disappeared. The secret's out. Sherry >>> Historical breeds are already disappearing. Try looking at a >>> Siamese, or a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sherry lmao I meant (laughing too hard to type) Person of 50 years ago. I thought you meant to type Persian. SignatureCheryl >lmao >I meant (laughing too hard to type) Person of 50 years ago. I thought you >meant to type Persian. Oh my gosh. I *read* that post to see what you were talking about. I honestly thought you meant the poor construction of the sentence, because I didn't see any typos. That's about as bad as a page-ad I designed years ago, with "Pubic Announcement" in 76-point type at the top. There's a reason why I can't proofread my own work. Sherry > That's about as bad as a page-ad I designed years ago, with "Pubic > Announcement" in 76-point type at the top. There's a reason why I can't > proofread my own work. Yikes. Did it go to the publisher that way? <snickering> Typing "pubic" for "public" is actually very common. I used to be an administrator for Novell networks and the directory of common executables is "public" and I can't tell you how many other admins I used to watch type "pubic" and have to backspace. Hmm.. perhaps that's just in the techie field? lol SignatureCheryl >> That's about as bad as a page-ad I designed years ago, with "Pubic >> Announcement" in 76-point type at the top. There's a reason why I can't >> proofread my own work. > >Yikes. Did it go to the publisher that way? <snickering> Oh, Lordy. Yes. Page ad, back page of the front section with spot color, with a circulation of 17,000. I'm sure all 17,000 subscribers still remember that ad. Sherry >>Yikes. Did it go to the publisher that way? <snickering> > > Oh, Lordy. Yes. Page ad, back page of the front section with spot > color, with a circulation of 17,000. I'm sure all 17,000 subscribers > still remember that ad. Heehee. Oh well. It's things like that that keep us giggling. Oh, and give the late show hosts something to pick fun on. :) SignatureCheryl > >> That's about as bad as a page-ad I designed years ago, with "Pubic > >> Announcement" in 76-point type at the top. There's a reason why I can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sherry That's hilarious! Reminds me...At my wedding, my best friend approached the minister and told him she had the diaphram for the altar. (Instead of diagram.) I guess he turned three shades of red before she realized what she had said... -L. sriddles@aol.comkitty (Sherry )wrote: >>I think the disappearance of (especially) naturally occuring - and >>even 'historical' (wrt Yngver's posts in this thread) - cat breeds >>would be a shame. > > Historical breeds are already disappearing. Try looking at a Siamese, or a >Person of fifty years ago, and look at them today. I'm not sure what you mean. This might have been more true ten or twenty years ago, but there are now quite a few breeders breeding to preserve the traditional look of the Siamese. Traditional or applehead Siamese were harder to find a decade or two ago than they are now. There are also some breeders attempting to preserve at least a resemblance to the Persian cat of a hundred years ago by breeding what are called traditional or doll-faced Persians. These cats still have somewhat rounder faces than the Persians of a century ago, but they do not have flat or Peke faces. Again, I am seeing a lot more of the doll-faced Persians now than a decade or so ago. Such breeders *are* trying to preserve the historic look of these cats. Here are some pics of doll-faced Persians: http://www.traditionalcats.com/BreedInfo/FAQTPersian/FAQTPersian.html Fair warning, however: these are some really adorable kittens. >> You can disagree, but you'd be wrong! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >environmental factors you cannot prove where behaviors >come from. Period. You know, I really wish you'd respond to what I post if you're going to respond about it. Anyway. So you're saying that Dr. McCune's study is a lie? Please note that I'm not saying that temperament is personality, nor am I saying that temperament is wholly genetic, nor am I saying that I can pinpoint why cats behave in any way. I am merely saying that there is a genetic component to temperament, which has been very strongly documented in the Russian fox study, Dr. McCune's study in cats, and other domestication experiments. Why is this so threatening to you? Orchid See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid >>> You can disagree, but you'd be wrong! >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >documented in the Russian fox study, Dr. McCune's study in cats, and >other domestication experiments. Why is this so threatening to you? The genetic component of temperament has also been demonstrated by the observation that cloned cattle have the same temperaments as the cow or bull from which they were cloned. It has also been demonstrated in studies of identical twins. I suppose I can see why this idea--that who we are (or who animals are) is greatly shaped by genes--is alarming to some, but to me it seems apparent. [This is a two-part answer since I seem to have overlooked the last half of your post in the first part.] > Hey, Britney is a master of semiconductor physics, I'll have you know: > britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm LOL! And, I misspoke, I should have said "ONE reason ..." that is what I was thinking. > True, but even if there were no purebred cats, shelter cats would > still be killed every day. The fundamental issue is reducing the > supply of cats to the shelters, and destroying all purebreds will not > help that significantly. Hey, I am not for destroying ANY cat. And I don't mean to say that breeding is absolutely evil, if only because there are no valid absolutes. [Or ... errr ... probably not many?? A conundrum ...!] What I mean to say is that there are so many much more worthwhile activities to support. I mean, look at it in the context of the big picture. No, not that big-- not in the realm of Achieving World Peace, but maybe just in the context of domesticated animals and what is happening with them worldwide. If you like cats, if you care about cats, if needless suffering bothers you, what do you do? Do you go and buy a "really cute and rare and cool!" breeder cat, or do you go and buy a shelter/pound cat to support the people who give their time and lives and homes up to the cause of alieviating some suffering for these animals? Human being will always tinker with things. It's just part of having big forebrains and opposable thumbs. Before you and I die we will see the regular breeding of humans for desired characteristics, and more money will be poured into this than feeding the starving. Why? Because the starving don't MAKE money for anyone. > I do my best. And quite well at times, I have to say. ;) > Well, unless someone provides evidence to the contrary, as far as I > know will do me. I know that certain breeds do have some genetic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > want and have always wanted certain characteristics - appearance, > temperament, whatever. I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing anything. I am just having my say in my own err charming way. Because I am a self-righteous do gooder? I don't think so. It's just the memory of all those sweet little creatures at the shelter, and the knowledge that so many are killed every day. It gives me the heebies. It makes me feel helpless. So I do what I can to feel like I'm doing something. > I also think that breeding of some of the purebred cats is desirable > to maintain types of cats that would otherwise disappear, at least > partially through humans appearing and changing the environment. Yes, but still. Context. Priorities. Perspective. Not to mention having a f*cking HEART. We are all obviously free to do as we please and I would fight for your right to this freedom. However, if there is not a special place in hell for people who elect to buy from breeders instead of rescuing the unwanted, there ought to be. Just wait until I get to the other side .... LOL! (...) > Hey, I am not for destroying ANY cat. Well, if people don't adopt breeds, they disappear. > And I don't > mean to say that breeding is absolutely evil, if only > because there are no valid absolutes. [Or ... errr ... > probably not many?? A conundrum ...!] And yet, further on in your post you say that you hope there's a special place in hell for people who buy from breeders! (...) > and what is happening with them worldwide. If you > like cats, if you care about cats, if needless suffering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who give their time and lives and homes up > to the cause of alieviating some suffering for these animals? Being hard headed (or is it hard nosed?) I own cats because I like them. I like their appearance and personalities. And behaviours. I don't own 'em because of some altruistic desire to save fluffy kittens that would otherwise die. So, I get a cat I want, from a shelter or from a breeder. If I want a cat that looks (or behaves) in a certain way, then if I can't get that from a shelter, I'll look elsewhere. This is not something I'll apologise for. (...) > I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing anything. > > I am just having my say in my own err charming way. Well, you are trying to stop people from buying from breeders! Or discourage, at least. > Because I am a self-righteous do gooder? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > heebies. It makes me feel helpless. So I do what > I can to feel like I'm doing something. Believe it or not, I do see your argument. But, for the reasons I've mentioned, it's not one that sways me. > > I also think that breeding of some of the purebred cats is desirable > > to maintain types of cats that would otherwise disappear, at least [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not to mention having a f*cking HEART. Owning a pet at all is probably irresponsible in the Grand Scheme of Things - there's a lot of cash that could be put to better uses than feeding fluffy his salmon ration. > We are all obviously free to do as we please and I would > fight for your right to this freedom. However, if there is not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LOL! Fortunately I don't believe there is another side. Just as well, eh... Steve. > (...) > > > > > Hey, I am not for destroying ANY cat. > > Well, if people don't adopt breeds, they disappear. First, people don't generally adopt breeds, they buy them. Second, I don't give a damn about humanly engineered breeds of domesticated animals dying out. I don't think animals are here for our convenience, even if those little flat faces are just so cute etc. > > And I don't > > mean to say that breeding is absolutely evil, if only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And yet, further on in your post you say that you hope there's a > special place in hell for people who buy from breeders! For breeders and for those who choose to buy cats people are breeding in order to make money. You bet. Just my opinion, but a strong one. What I meant was that there may be people who breed animals for other reasons than just money or status. However, as long as the situation WE have created (i.e. the wholsae slaughter of throwaway animals) still exists, in my book it is as f*cked up to buy from a breeder as it is to get a stray and let it have kittens. > Being hard headed (or is it hard nosed?) I own cats because I like > them. I like their appearance and personalities. And behaviours. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > way, then if I can't get that from a shelter, I'll look elsewhere. > This is not something I'll apologise for. I'm not asking for an apology. Just as long as you know that you're a shallow scumbag, that's enough for me. :') (...) > First, people don't generally adopt breeds, they buy them. Now who's splitting hairs... Besides, shelter cats are bought, too! > Second, I don't give a damn about humanly engineered breeds > of domesticated animals dying out. I don't think animals > are here for our convenience, even if those little > flat faces are just so cute etc. See elsewhere in thread. Not all breeds are human contrivances. I'll also say that I would not allow *all* the breeds to exist, were I in the Big Chair for a day. (...) > I'm not asking for an apology. Just as long as you > know that you're a shallow scumbag, that's enough > for me. :') That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me. I feel quite emotional. Steve. Nice attitude. Believe what you believe. That is fine with me. You clearly know zero about the Chartreux breed, it heritage, and clearly know nothing about the lengths my breeder goes to in order to maintain a wide and healthy gene pool. I had a pound cat. He was great. I have a purebred Golden Retriever, she is great. This time around, I want a purebred cat whose history and breeding I am familiar with. A pound cat can be WONDERFUL, or can be horrible. It is pure pot luck, so take your best shot. This time around I choose to go a different route. If you want to call my breeder vulgar names, or call me names as well, that is your way and you may have at it. But all the name calling and twisted logic in the world will never make you right. And your ignorance and lack of understanding about the "genetically screwed with" Chartreux does not become you at all. You'd have at least some measure of credibility if you had a working knowledge of the breed and techniques that good breeders use. Instead you come off ignorant, with an uneducated and unbalanced viewpoint. > > Not so fast, Mary. I just buried the greatest cat in the world. He > was a [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > alt.pets.cats.unnatural.breeds.that.make.money.for.heartless.shitheads > ? >Not so fast, Mary. I just buried the greatest cat in the world. He was a >black and white from the pound. What a great cat. I loved him. Despite the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that it was not handled enough when it was young and thus resists all human >contact without biting, he still loves it. Whoa. You're using a couple of anecdotal stories to diss shelter cats. They are the exception, not the rule. You can't be sure that "poor breeding and genetics" caused your cat's health problems. Actually, the risk of genetic disease is fairly low in shelter cats because of the vast moggie gene pool. As for your neighbors, I've hand-raised kittens that still had their umbilical cords who learned excellent litterbox habits. And since they were handled, by me, they were all very loving kittens. You just can't generalize shelter cats that way. IMO, you have just as good a chance getting a cat that can be made into a healthy, well-adjusted cat at a shelter as anywhere else. Sherry > You just can't generalize shelter cats that way. Agreed. Some are great others are not. You cannot simply generalize and I did not mean to. >IMO, you have just as good a chance getting a cat that can be made into a healthy, well-adjusted cat at a > shelter as anywhere else. I completely disagree. I think your overall chances are not nearly as good as going to a breeder and knowing the parents, and knowing how they were raised. I believe you hedge you bets and improve your chances. That is my opinion, and I certainly respect yours. >>IMO, you have just as good a chance getting a cat that can be made into a >healthy, well-adjusted cat at a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >raised. I believe you hedge you bets and improve your chances. That is my >opinion, and I certainly respect yours. I suppose, all in all, it would depend on the breeder. I have seen the absolute worst so my opinion about breeders is very skewed..... Be cautious, ask a lot of questions, ask to see the contract, and (to me)..most importantly, before you decide, drop in unannounced at the cattery. Just to see if things truly are as they appear. Good luck. SSherry > >>IMO, you have just as good a chance getting a cat that can be made into a > >healthy, well-adjusted cat at a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > I suppose, all in all, it would depend on the breeder. Particularly upon the honesty of the breeder. > I suppose, all in all, it would depend on the breeder. I have seen the > absolute worst so my opinion about breeders is very skewed..... Be cautious, > ask a lot of questions, ask to see the contract, and (to me)..most > importantly, before you decide, drop in unannounced at the cattery. Just to > see if things truly are as they appear. Good luck. I'd also suggest interacting with the kitten's mother and father more than the kitten itself - difficult to judge the potential personality of a kitten, but if you interact with the parents, you can at least see what that kitten might become. Steve. >The way I see it, there are two cats in the world. One is at the pound, the >other is at the breeder's cattery. BOTH are in this world and I get to >choose. This time I want one whose breeding was well selected, and one who >was with its mommy and well-socialized. While I realize that there are no >guarantees, I at least know the cat's history, breeding stock, and rearing >techniques. That, Mary, is important to me this time around. Unfortunately anyone who posts on this ng anything about purebred cats meets with a lecture on why they should be adopting a shelter cat. There are probably more welcoming places to post your questions about various breeds. I have only seen a few Chartreux at cat shows, so I can't really comment. In personality they seem somewhat similar to the British shorthair, a generally easy-going, serene cat. My advice would be to talk to Chartreux breeders, and if you have any major cat shows in your area, go see if there are any Chartreux breeders there. It's always a good idea to talk to the breeders and get to know them and their cats before making a decision. > >The way I see it, there are two cats in the world. One is at the pound, the > >other is at the breeder's cattery. BOTH are in this world and I get to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with a lecture on why they should be adopting a shelter cat. There are probably > more welcoming places to post your questions about various breeds. Thanks. Where do you suggest? I am interested in finding that place. >> Unfortunately anyone who posts on this ng anything about purebred cats >meets [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Thanks. Where do you suggest? I am interested in finding that place. Best would be a breed specific mailing list, but there probably isn't one for the Chartreux since they are a rare breed. But you can try this board: http://pub60.ezboard.com/bfanciersbreederreferrallistcatchat for more level-headed discussion of various breeds and purebreds in general. You might also want to subscribe to the Cat Fanciers mailing list: http://www.fanciers.com/about.html Some of the members probably breed or have experience with the Chartreux. Good luck. circa Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:41:23 -0500, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Jimmy Lee (jimmylee@charter.net) said, > I am planning to get a Chartreux cat. A rare breed. Petfinder has eight listed in my area. I don't know where you live, but I imagine that Petfinder has some in your area, too. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. circa Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:41:23 -0500, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, >Jimmy Lee (jimmylee@charter.net) said, >> I am planning to get a Chartreux cat. A rare breed. >> >Petfinder has eight listed in my area. I don't know where you live, >but I imagine that Petfinder has some in your area, too. While the cats listed as Chartreux on Petfinder are cute, none of them are actually Chartreux; in fact, few of them even bear even a slight resemblance to a Chartreux. There is no such thing, for example, as a tabby or calico Chartreux. They are blue (commonly called grey) with orange eyes. Some shelters just label any grey or greyish cat Russian Blue, British Blue, or Chartreux. The Chartreux, however, has a distinctive look and coat which you would not find in a random bred cat. circa 23 Mar 2004 18:02:38 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Yngver (yngver@aol.comnospam) said, > >> I am planning to get a Chartreux cat. A rare breed. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Chartreux. The Chartreux, however, has a distinctive look and coat which you > would not find in a random bred cat. I was kinda trying to make a subtle point that there are lots of pretty cats that look like a chartreux who are just waiting for homes. :-\ Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. > I was kinda trying to make a subtle point that there are lots of > pretty cats that look like a chartreux who are just waiting for > homes. :-\ I got you. But then I must be one of those "them and us" types. *Shaking me head.* >I was kinda trying to make a subtle point that there are lots of >pretty cats that look like a chartreux who are just waiting for >homes. :-\ I see, but as I said, although they are pretty cats they do not in fact look like the Chartreux. I originally thought you were trying to say that Chartreux are not all that rare, as the OP had said, since there were some listed as Chartreux on Petfinders. That's why I pointed out they were not Chartreux. "Not so fast, Mary. I just buried the greatest cat in the world. He was a black and white from the pound. What a great cat. I loved him. Despite the fact that he developed a myriad of diseases, puked 3 times a day, cost me a mint diagnosing and unsuccessfully treating his irritable bowel disease, and broke my heart by dying younger than expected - likely all as a result of poor breeding and bad genes - I loved him. My next door neighbor really loves his pound cat too. Despite the fact that it was taken away from its mommy too early and never learned to use the litterbox, and despite the fact that it was not handled enough when it was young and thus resists all human contact without biting, he still loves it." My (2) shelter cats, my sisters (3) shelter cats, most of the shelter cats I've ever known if they get out of the rescue system fast enough, are as healthy and strong as can be. Technically random breeding always strenthens the gene pool and interbreeding amongst a small group repeatedly weakens it. Basic Mendel. True in people and true in cats. But what I find kinda wacky is the seeming inability of so many purebred catowners who "love cats" to go to a shelter and pick out a well-socialized, trainable and calm cat - who abound in shelters. Within 15 minutes of meeting a cat, I can get some pretty strong clues about it's temperament, and if I spend an hour hanging out with it, I could write a book :> Is that like too much work to do to select a companion for the next 10-20 years? I've been volunteerin |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message