 |
 | 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 / October 2004Cat Cam - Pet Tracking
Hello. I am really interested to know if anyone has had any joy with having tracking devices or cameras on their pets? I'd be very interested to know this especially if you have a cat, but also a dog as well. I am researching into whether its possible to have a tiny wireless camera attached to your cat somehow so you can see what it gets up to when its out and about. I have seen some very tiny wireless spy cams, some have pretty good quality video for such small cameras, and they are also quite cheap so it wouldn't be a problem if it got damaged. The main thing, well the only thing I am concerned about if this was possible is to make it so that the cat doesn't even know its there and doesn't have any discomfort. So one of the main things I'd be interested to know is if these wireless devices transmitting on 2.4 Ghz (or whatever that is) give out much radiation like with mobile phones? If so then I wouldn't be interested unless the levels were extremely minimal and safe. If it wouldn't be too heavy and you could have it hanging from its collar, or, perhaps some kind of clothing your cat could have around its belly, then that would be good. The only difficult thing would be trying to get the cat to agree to have it, he could scratch you to bits making it impossible to put on the collar. Perhaps a velcro strip of fabric wrapped around the middle of the cat with the tiny cam on top would work? I think the main problem would be the power source. Some of these tiny spy cams need a square 9v battery, or 4x AA sized batteries, which would weight too much. If I was to get one of the tiny spy cams, I would have to modify it so that it could run on the tiny lithium batteries instead to minimise weight. Perhaps I could have 2 or 3 of them together which would have the right voltage. Of course that would then reduce the battery life quite a lot because of the lower capacity. At best I would probably only then get 1 or 2 hours max if that. I don't believe the range of the cam would be much of a problem as a few of them can transmit up to a couple hundred meters away. Perhaps if it went in another persons home though to visit their cat it might cut the video, if it didn't though that would open a whole new can of worms concerning privacy etc. I think it should be obvious if the cat had a cam on it, though some of them do just walk into homes uninvited. There has been a programme on television here in England that managed to do this I believe, so if I can find out the programme it would be interesting to see their set up and how they did it. Anyone else out their interested to see what their feline gets up to during the day, and even night? I have posted this to a couple other groups besides the cat ones where I thought there may be some knowledgable people on tiny wireless cams. Anyway thanks for any info/ideas/suggestions on making this possible. It might turn out to be a bad idea, but I wont know unless I investigate more. Cheers John WTF?? LJ > WTF?? > > LJ lol lloyd >> WTF?? >> >> LJ > >lol lloyd Hey! Stop laughing guys! :) This is something I am researching.... I love cats and wildlife in general and I also love digital photography/video. This is why I have the interest in trying this. I'm not going to have my cat going around the neighbourhood every day look like the terminator or a half assimilated feline borg! :) (even though he might act like it sometimes) He scares dogs away just as he is! They go running when they see him! It is probably because of his big brother though "the rotweiler". They know they are associated so they don't mess. It was just going to be a once off to get a better understanding of what the little bugger spends all his time doing and where, what his territory is, and who he interacts with etc. How many girl cats he is humping :) Just about everything on television that's about cats I'll watch especially if it's tigers or domestic cats. I often go to Zoos and wildlife parks filming the cats (and other animals too but not as much), not just in my own country but all over. I am hoping to go on a trip to India and Thailand some day to see Tigers in the wild, and I would also like to visit South America as well. So far my experiences have just been limited to Zoos and wildlife places. I've got video from Melbourne Zoo Aus, Miami Zoo US, Chester Zoo UK Singapore etc..., lots of other wildlife parks too. Am planning a trip to Berlin Zoo in Germany in the near future (the largest in the world!) I have a stack of DVDs on Tigers. I record just about everything on TV about cats, any type of cat really. I don't think the collar would work anyway because it would be too bulky, and the only collar he's ever had he destroyed (didn't like it). Perhaps the whole idea would have to be scrapped, but in the end it is up to the cat to decide if it is going to bother him or not he'll take it apart or let it stay on him. That's if the idea even evolves more, and I think of a way to have a cam on cat without probs. Who knows, in one year from now they might make a cam so tiny that it is only millimeters in size. At the moment the smallest I see are size of one penny. Thanks and stop bloody laughing please! :) John > >> WTF?? > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hey! Stop laughing guys! :) John, I have no suggestions for you, and I AM trying to stop laughing, honestly I am. (I am still imagining the butt washing shots.) But whatever you do, be very mindful that your cat can get caught up in anything you strap on to him--cats hang themselves to death on collars all the time. So be very wary of anything that might do this to him if you let him roam. >><SNIP> > But whatever you do, be very mindful that your cat can get caught up > in anything you strap on to him--cats hang themselves to death on collars > all the time. Sounds good to me. Now, please, everyone, stop cross posting. PeterS Remove my PANTS to reply. >>> <SNIP> >> But whatever you do, be very mindful that your cat can get caught up [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > PeterS > Remove my PANTS to reply. Come on, this is interesting :) I am not sure what "alt.cats.world.domination" is about (making spy-cats to dominate the world? I watch Alias too much). But I would like to know a good answer as I wonder if the technology is there already to do this (and if so, what are the implications). Matej >>>> <SNIP> >>> But whatever you do, be very mindful that your cat can get caught up [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >But I would like to know a good answer as I wonder if the technology is >there already to do this (and if so, what are the implications). I've seen TV documentaries where transponders are attached to birds to analyse migration patterns. If geese then why not cats? I can anticipate funding for some enterprising student's PhD on "Nocturnal socialisation patterns of domestic felines". :-) (I fear that I must continue to attach a smiley to posts in this thread).  SignatureTony Morgan http://www.camcord.info > I've seen TV documentaries where transponders are attached to birds to > analyse migration patterns. I guess planting a "bug" that sends a signal allowing a triangulation or tracking of the animal is feasible. Putting a small camera on the animal, however, I'm not so sure as, as the OP said, the batteries and the camera itself would be a burdon. Sure, you can put it on a seal or a whale, but on a domestic cat? > If geese then why not cats? I can anticipate funding for some > enterprising student's PhD on "Nocturnal socialisation patterns of > domestic felines". I am sure there are biologists out there researching that :) But again, imagine a video footage of the encounters and activities of a pet! :) > :-) > > (I fear that I must continue to attach a smiley to posts in this > thread). Do not fear to smile :) Matej > >><SNIP> > > But whatever you do, be very mindful that your cat can get caught up [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > PeterS > Remove my PANTS to reply. Oh, yes, your charming comment makes the nice cat people want to just jump to take directions from you. >> >><SNIP> >> > But whatever you do, be very mindful that your cat can get caught up [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >cat people want to just jump to take directions >from you. Purr-fect... :-) SignatureTony Morgan http://www.camcord.info [snip] > John, I have no suggestions for you, and I AM trying > to stop laughing, honestly I am. (I am still imagining the butt washing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you > let him roam. Also bear in mind that a small enough transmitter on 2.4 GHz would only have a range of about a hundred yards..! Ivor >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Ivor Missed the original post, but: I've got a cat that's an escape artist and when free can wander for weeks at a time before returning home. I'ld love to have some way to track where she goes. >>> WTF?? >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > big brother though "the rotweiler". They know they are associated so > they don't mess. Serious question here. Do you really think that the *other* animals around the neighbouhood stop and actually *think* to not not go near this cat purely because s/him has a Rooti as a brother? Because that does sound a bit silly. Hey dude I was just reding this and I wonderd what's with the "silly" crap? -- Catcrazy > >>> WTF?? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Because that does sound a bit silly. > Hello. > > I am really interested to know if anyone has had any joy with having > tracking devices or cameras on their pets? One the big gun biologists did a study on cat behavior by using a "cat-cam" (they originally called it a "pussy cam"but they changed the name for some reason - wise move). I can't remember which - might have been Leyhausen or MacDonald or possibly Bradshaw. They attached the camera to the cat's collar to track the cat's activities. Outdoor proponents would sure be disappointed if they saw the tape. Phil > They attached the camera to the cat's collar to track the cat's > activities. > Outdoor proponents would sure be disappointed if they saw the tape. Why? Do you think "outdoor proponents" would be disappointed seeing evidence that their cats kill things? Knowing as they do that cats are carnivores? > > They attached the camera to the cat's collar to track the cat's > > activities. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you think "outdoor proponents" would be disappointed seeing evidence that > their cats kill things? Knowing as they do that cats are carnivores? Maybe he means that they go under the house and go to sleep. > > They attached the camera to the cat's collar to track the cat's > > activities. > > Outdoor proponents would sure be disappointed if they saw the tape. > > Why? The cats spent 40% of their time asleep, 22% resting, 13% hunting (although this varied), 20% grooming, 3% wondering, and 2% feeding. --- just about everything they do indoors. > Do you think "outdoor proponents" would be disappointed seeing evidence that > their cats kill things? > Knowing as they do that cats are carnivores? Nope. But they should be disappointed if their cats *didn't* kill other animals - especially after all the work nature put into designing the quintessential predator. > Nope. But they should be disappointed if their cats *didn't* kill other > animals - especially after all the work nature put into designing the > quintessential predator. Why? You're making a lot of very unsafe assumptions here. > > Nope. But they should be disappointed if their cats *didn't* kill other > > animals - especially after all the work nature put into designing the > > quintessential predator. > > Why? You're making a lot of very unsafe assumptions here. Silly me, I assumed the cat is a predator because she has four canine teeth in the front corners of her upper and lower jaws, which I again assumed are tools for seizing and killing prey. Silly me also assumed the cat's condyloid process are bar-shaped to allow her to hold struggling prey. If that's not bad enough, I also assumed the cat is an instinctive predator and cannot be dissuaded from hunting and killing her natural prey. >> > Nope. But they should be disappointed if their cats *didn't* kill >> > other [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > predator > and cannot be dissuaded from hunting and killing her natural prey. What has any of that to do with a cat's owner's feelings of disappointment or otherwise? It would help if you tried logic. > >> > Nope. But they should be disappointed if their cats *didn't* kill > >> > other [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > What has any of that to do with a cat's owner's feelings of disappointment > or otherwise? It would help if you tried logic. LOL! Logic? Not one of your silly posts made any sense! (...) > The cats spent 40% of their time asleep, 22% resting, 13% hunting (although > this varied), 20% grooming, 3% wondering, and 2% feeding. --- just about > everything they do indoors. A strawman argument, this one. The point is not that cats do similar things indoors and outdoors. It would be almost impossible for this not to be so ('my cat only flies biplanes when he goes outdoors. Indoors, he reads the papers and produces neo-classical pointillist abstracts'). Indeed, it's more the case that cats were designed in nature, in the outdoors, to show the above behaviours, and so cats attempt to continue to express these outdoor behaviours when they're captive indoors. Basically every captive pet shows the same set of behaviours in nature and in captivity. This does not mean that captivity per se is universally a good thing, and something that should not be questioned. It is also true that the cat often prefers to carry out the above behaviours outdoors - indoor / outdoor cats will often choose to have a nap outdoors. Not suprising, given that cats were designed in nature, not in the living room. Indoor cats cannot truly hunt, although simulation gets 'em some of the way. (...) > Nope. But they should be disappointed if their cats *didn't* kill other > animals - especially after all the work nature put into designing the > quintessential predator. Absolutely. And I trust that indoor proponents are sad that their cats do not have the opportunity to hunt - especially after all the work nature put into designing the quintessential predator... Steve. > Indoor cats cannot truly hunt, although simulation gets 'em some of > the way. Pfft! This time of year mice and bugs tend to come indoor and our great hunters are very busy. We even had a chipmunk come in through the ventilation system once. If you were that chipmunk, you would have felt genuinely hunted. (I didn't let them get her, though.) > > Nope. But they should be disappointed if their cats *didn't* kill other > > animals - especially after all the work nature put into designing the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do not have the opportunity to hunt - especially after all the work > nature put into designing the quintessential predator... Aside from the real critters she catches (mostly bugs, to be sure) there is the well-abused long-headless rubber snake Cheeky conquers several times a day and presents to me with great howling fanfare. I get to see my great hunters hunt every day. It's almost enough to get me to stop kissing them right on the lips. "Mary" <crazyaboutfelines@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Qag8d.51973$ci3.2437692 @twister.southeast.rr.com: > It's almost enough to get me to stop kissing > them right on the lips. I know -- sometimes I need to have a moratorium on kissing, until I am able to forget whatever disgusting thing they just did with their mouths (I'm including the dog in this -- she's actually the worse offender, being a dog and everything...). --Catherine & Rosalie the calicohead & guest dog appearance by Zoe the cockerchow > "Mary" <crazyaboutfelines@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Qag8d.51973$ci3.2437692 > @twister.southeast.rr.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > including the dog in this -- she's actually the worse offender, being a dog > and everything...). One of my cats loves to need on my chest with her head directly over my face while I'm sleeping. The problem is she dribbles from her nose when she purrs heavily, so, I often wake up with a wet face. :-> Phil > > Indoor cats cannot truly hunt, although simulation gets 'em some of > > the way. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > great hunters hunt every day. It's almost enough to get me to stop kissing > them right on the lips. Mary, stop being creative - you're embarrassing the outdoor proponents! :-> Wanna see your cats have a blast? Buy a few crickets at Petsmart and watch your cats really enjoy themselves hunting them down! Just be sure to only let one cricket out at a time... I learnt that the hard way. Phil >> > Indoor cats cannot truly hunt, although simulation gets 'em some of >> > the way. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Phil Great idea Phil, but I think I'll let them out when the cats are in the backyard. Yesterday I saw Nipsy batting something around and it turned out to be some sort of beetle. Big thing, maybe an inch or longer. Then he disappeared under the deck with it and I can only assume he ate it. > >Wanna see your cats have a blast? Buy a few crickets at Petsmart and watch > >your cats really enjoy themselves hunting them down! Just be sure to only [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > some sort of beetle. Big thing, maybe an inch or longer. Then he > disappeared under the deck with it and I can only assume he ate it. One time a cricket got under my great, great grandfather clock (originally, it was my grandfather's grandfather clock). My cats laid in ambush for hours waiting for it to come out - they finally got it. Now, more than a year later, they still look at the base of the clock whenever they pass it! LOL! > > >Wanna see your cats have a blast? Buy a few crickets at Petsmart and > watch [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Now, more than a year later, they still look at the base of the clock > whenever they pass it! LOL! Same with the couch under which the chipmunk was discovered! > > Absolutely. And I trust that indoor proponents are sad that their cats > > do not have the opportunity to hunt - especially after all the work [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > great hunters hunt every day. It's almost enough to get me to stop kissing > them right on the lips. Hunting things inside the home is different from hunting them outside. You know I am pretty anti-roaming, but let's tell it like it is. They can come close indoors; they can get live bugs, sure, but they can't really all- out run, leap, and go crazy inside like they can outside (unless you own a mansion or have a very empty house). The smells are different, the texture of the ground is different, everything is different except the cat and the bug. This is not to say the cat isn't having a blast - they surely are. But it isn't the SAME. It's just close. There are only substitutes for outdoor behaviors and/or situations. They do just fine with them. But they are, in fact, substitutes. A scratching post is not a tree. Rowan acts quite different hunting bugs outside on her long line and harness than she does inside. She just doesn't have the room inside to get up crazy speed and do flips and twirls without hitting furniture. Plus, there are just so MANY bugs outside. Ants, moths, spiders, little beetles...I'm not bringing that into my home. *g* Plus, there's a variety of other things outside to have fun with that are not bugs - leaves twirling, grass moving, sticks to bat around, and so on. Squirrels, birds, and bunnies to try to chase. She can't catch them, of course, but she does give chase as fast as I'll walk. *LOL* Her biggest joy in life is going walking outside with me. It's very, very obvious. Since bugs get in my house a lot (screen door sucks), there must be a lot more to it than just the hunting of a bug. All of that said, I am not sad for my cats not hunting. I can deal with them killing bugs. But if one of them ever caught a squirrel, bunny, or bird, I'd feel like the biggest sh.t ever. And I'm not sad that they don't roam, at least not here. There are far, far too many hazards to chance for them to be a bit happier than they already are safe inside my home. Anyway, enough rambling from me. Signature-- ~kaeli~ Doing my part to piss off the Religious Right. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace (...) > Pfft! This time of year mice and bugs tend to come indoor and > our great hunters are very busy. We even had a chipmunk come in through > the ventilation system once. If you were that chipmunk, you would have > felt genuinely hunted. (I didn't let them get her, though.) Probably just as well, 'cause chipmunk chunks are hard to chip from the Chippendale. > I get to see my > great hunters hunt every day. It's almost enough to get me to stop kissing > them right on the lips. That and the fact that they were probably licking the sh.t from their arse but 5 minutes ago. Steve. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Steve. What? My petite, delicate little darlings? No WAY. I think its just you English people's cats that do that. ;) (...) > > That and the fact that they were probably licking the sh.t from their > > arse but 5 minutes ago. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What? My petite, delicate little darlings? No WAY. I think its just > you English people's cats that do that. Heavens, no! My felines are just like the royal family. They have no bodily functions at all and are completely inbred. S. > (...) > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > S. Kind of like Prince Charles, eh? ;) (...) > > Heavens, no! My felines are just like the royal family. They have no > > bodily functions at all and are completely inbred. > > Kind of like Prince Charles, eh? ;) Kind of, although my cats are considerably more intelligent and have a better appreciation of architecture. Their ears are in similar proportion to dear Chuck's though. S. > (...) > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Kind of, although my cats are considerably more intelligent and have a better appreciation of architecture. Their ears are in similar proportion to dear Chuck's though. > S. <EG> He makes such a fun target. > (...) > > > > The cats spent 40% of their time asleep, 22% resting, 13% hunting (although > > this varied), 20% grooming, 3% wondering, and 2% feeding. --- just about > > everything they do indoors. <snip> > Absolutely. And I trust that indoor proponents are sad that their cats > do not have the opportunity to hunt - ...mice that may have consumed poison and parasites, being faced with territorial disputes which often results in fights, wounds, and deadly infectious diseases, threats from other animals and people, getting run over by cars, buses, and trucks. Nope. I'm not disappointed in the least. Nor do my cats seem to disappointed about missing all that "fun". (...) > Nope. I'm not disappointed in the least. Nor do my cats seem to > disappointed about missing all that "fun". Though if you offered them the opportunity for said fun, they would vote with their paws, and take it... Steve. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Though if you offered them the opportunity for said fun, they would > vote with their paws, and take it... I'd vote for jumping out of a plane without a parachute (imagine the rush!) if wasn't aware of the risks and consequences. Likewise, cats don't know the mice they might catch may have consumed poison and parasites. Nor are they aware that territorial disputes often results serious wounds, and deadly infectious diseases. Nor are they aware of the danger of getting run over by cars, buses, and trucks... but I do - its my job - my cats pay me to protect and provide. If my cats aren't happy indoors - they're sure doing one hell of an act! > > "Phil P." <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in message > news:<k9ydnTwoWoNwAPzcRVn-hg@giganews.com>... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > If my cats aren't happy indoors - they're sure doing one hell of an act! Mine too--happiest is Cheeky, the former feral who would certainly be dead now had she not been taken in. However, these discussions have me thinking that if we could remove the danger, it might indeed be fun for the cats to play outside with bugs and leaves--as long as they are totally supervised by an attentive human. (Yes, I mean in rural areas too. Even in a beautiful area like where Sherry lives, it takes one car, one slow day for the cat, one mean stray dog who is fast enough. Too much of a chance for me to take.) I like Kaeli's compromise-- having the cats play supervised on a lead or in an escape proof yard, as long as there is an attentive human nearby. > > If my cats aren't happy indoors - they're sure doing one hell of an act! > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > long as there > is an attentive human nearby. You know, I think we really need to refine our terminology here. "Outdoor cat" generally means "free roaming". "Indoor/Outdoor" generally means "indoor/free roaming outdoors". My cats are primarily indoor cats with free access to a large outdoor pen - yet I consider my cats "indoor cats". I had this same terminology problem with Yngver a few years ago. Her cats are primarily indoor cats that she takes out on a leash, yet she considers her cats "indoor/outdoor cats". We were arguing - but we were actually on the same side without knowing it until she clarified what she meant by "indoor/outdoor cat". I completely agree that cats should have access to the outdoors - but only under supervision; either by going out on a leash or into a pen or cat-proof yard. To avoid unnesessary arguments, what do say we call these cats "indoor/protected outdoors"? Phil > > > If my cats aren't happy indoors - they're sure doing one hell of an act! > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Phil I'm with you. That is of course what I have meant the whole time. I thought it was self-explanatory that cats who go outside supervised or contained in a high-fenced yard are safe, but later I figured, I guess not. (...) > You know, I think we really need to refine our terminology here. "Outdoor > cat" generally means "free roaming". "Indoor/Outdoor" generally means > "indoor/free roaming outdoors". My cats are primarily indoor cats with free > access to a large outdoor pen - yet I consider my cats "indoor cats". I think you are right that we have terminology problems. For example, I consider the 'outdoor' bit of 'indoor/outdoor cat' to mean a cat with access to the outdoors such that they can express their outdoor needs fully or near-as-dammit. This could be - usually is - free roaming (with or without tracking, vide the OP!), but it could just as well be in a suitable enclosed space (with or without supervision). I don't think a leashed cat is outdoors in the same way, but a cat with leashed access to the outdoors is certainly not an 'indoor' cat IMO. It's all a continuum. (...) > I completely agree that cats should have access to the outdoors - but only > under supervision; either by going out on a leash or into a pen or cat-proof > yard. > > To avoid unnesessary arguments, what do say we call these cats > "indoor/protected outdoors"? Are there unnecessary arguments? 'Indoor / protected outdoor' sounds a bit unwieldy, but maybe not as unwieldy as a 500-post flamefest. Steve. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with access to the outdoors such that they can express their outdoor > needs and risks of: 1.. Injury or death by vehicles 2.. Poisoned intentionally or accidentally 3.. Injury or death by fighting with other cats 4.. Infectious diseases contracted from other cats. 5.. Parasites: fleas, ticks, and a host of infectious bacteria. 6.. Injury or death by sadists 7.. Injury or death by dogs or predators 8.. Getting lost, picked up by A/C 9.. Theft for sale as laboratory animals or "bait" for hunters. > Are there unnecessary arguments? > > 'Indoor / protected outdoor' sounds a bit unwieldy, but maybe not as > unwieldy as a 500-post flamefest. ...which could be avoided if some outdoor proponents would buy a GPS unit so they would know where they are and suddenly realize that the overwhelming majority of owned cats in the US are kept indoors and/or have access to outdoor cat-proof enclosures and/or go for walks on leashes. And a calendar... because the time is long gone when it was safe for most cats in the US to roam free. (...) > > I think you are right that we have terminology problems. For example, > > I consider the 'outdoor' bit of 'indoor/outdoor cat' to mean a cat > > with access to the outdoors such that they can express their outdoor > > needs > > and risks of: Hm, your reply's a bit of a non-sequitor considering I made no statement that said needs must be expressed via free roaming. But let's grind the horse corpse to dust... > 1.. Injury or death by vehicles > 2.. Poisoned intentionally or accidentally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 8.. Getting lost, picked up by A/C > 9.. Theft for sale as laboratory animals or "bait" for hunters. All risks, but not all equally likely - or even likely at all, in some cases. For example, in Kolata et al.'s 1974 study (JAVMA 164: 499-502), of the 129 injured cats surveyed, none were injured by a weapon, and only 1 was identified as being subject to abuse. Vehicles and animal interactions were the main identifiable causes of trauma. Fleas and ticks are basically not an issue too, given the various effective anti flea / tick products available. (...) > ...which could be avoided if some outdoor proponents would buy a GPS unit so > they would know where they are Although there is a risk that their unit will think they are 4000' lower than they actually are and thus in a cave rather than up a hill. Mine did this just t'other day. > and suddenly realize that the overwhelming > majority of owned cats in the US are kept indoors Without a cite, I don't believe this statistic - based on my everyday experience of the part of the US where I live. Most of the people I know who have cats here allow them unprotected outdoor access. TBH, based on my experiences on other parts of the WWWonderful, the views of rpch+b are not representative of anywhere in the real world (sadly, this includes the views on declaw too). > calendar... > because the time is long gone when it was safe for most cats in the US to > roam free. And the indoor frottageurs should bone up on their geography. They would then discover than everwhere is not the same, neither within nor without the US. Steve. > (...) > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > All risks, but not all equally likely - or even likely at all, Don't get out much, do you? > (...) > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hm, your reply's a bit of a non-sequitor considering I made no > statement that said needs must be expressed via free roaming. I simply stated the risks of free roaming... which was my point. But > let's grind the horse corpse to dust... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > All risks, but not all equally likely - or even likely at all, Perhaps you need to get out more, or even better, actually work in animal rescue. The view is little different in the field than from your armchair. I worked a vet who was an emergency and critical care specialist for >20 years - he has a somewhat different opinion than you of the real world. in some > cases. For example, in Kolata et al.'s 1974 study (JAVMA 164: > 499-502), of the 129 injured cats surveyed, none were injured by a > weapon, and only 1 was identified as being subject to abuse. Vehicles > and animal interactions were the main identifiable causes of trauma. Wow! A whopping 129 cats! That's sure a "reliable" sample size to extrapolate to ~70 million cats! LOL! Reminds me of Church & Lawton and even Mays. They only used 78 cats in a backwoods village to estimate number of animals killed/year by free roaming cats in England. LOL! How about the Childs & Ross study? The *actual* number of dead cats annually removed from Baltimore streets ranged from 2,621 to 2,917. They estimated over 5,000 free-roaming cats are killed by every year -- *just by cars*. > Fleas and ticks are basically not an issue too, given the various > effective anti flea / tick products available. Never heard of heartworm disease or tapeworms, huh? Ah, what the hell, just keep pumping medication into and onto the cats indefinitely, right? > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lower than they actually are and thus in a cave rather than up a hill. > Mine did this just t'other day. Seems you know as much about GPS units as you do about cats. Just kidding... or am I? > > and suddenly realize that the overwhelming > > majority of owned cats in the US are kept indoors > > Without a cite, I don't believe this statistic - That's ok, I don't mind. based on my everyday > experience of the part of the US where I live. As I said, perhaps you need to get out more. "The frog at the bottom of a well thinks the whole sky is only 2 meters wide". Most of the people I > know who have cats here allow them unprotected outdoor access. Perhaps you need to meet more people. LOL! TBH, > based on my experiences on other parts of the WWWonderful, the views > of rpch+b are not representative of anywhere in the real world (sadly, > this includes the views on declaw too). I don't think so. Switzerland for example, singlehandly disqualifies your statement. Most of those people never allow their cats outdoors. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other, disqualify your statement about declawing. In fact, most of the civilized world opposes declawing. > > calendar... > > because the time is long gone when it was safe for most cats in the US to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would then discover than everwhere is not the same, neither within nor > without the US. You're right. Can't surf in Arizona. (...) > > All risks, but not all equally likely - or even likely at all, > > Perhaps you need to get out more, or even better, actually work in animal > rescue. I see. So, if you work in animal rescue, all risks become equally likely. An amazing effect. Practically magic. (...) > in some > > cases. For example, in Kolata et al.'s 1974 study (JAVMA 164: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wow! A whopping 129 cats! That's sure a "reliable" sample size to > extrapolate to ~70 million cats! LOL! Gosh, s'funny that you didn't emphasis this sample size when you were trying to use the paper to support a position of yours (http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2C725A79). Selective memory? Anyway, it's the nature of the beast that small sample sizes are used to make predictions about massively larger populations. This can have problems, true (sampling bias and all that good stuff), but the predictions will usally be OK within the type of populatation studied. Caveat emptor. (...) > How about the Childs & Ross study? The *actual* number of dead cats annually > removed from Baltimore streets ranged from 2,621 to 2,917. Of which 90% were unneutered, and 1 in 5 showed evidence of being owned at some point in their life. (...) > > Fleas and ticks are basically not an issue too, given the various > > effective anti flea / tick products available. > > Never heard of heartworm disease or tapeworms, huh? Ah, what the hell, just > keep pumping medication into and onto the cats indefinitely, right? Revolution effectively guards against heartworms. Adverse effects of Revolution, Frontline et al. are relatively rare, and I'm not aware of any cumulative toxic effect via their application. (...) > Seems you know as much about GPS units as you do about cats. Just > kidding... or am I? I'm not sure WAAS you mean. (...) > As I said, perhaps you need to get out more. Heh. If I got out more, I wouldn't need a house. (...) > Most of the people I > > know who have cats here allow them unprotected outdoor access. > > Perhaps you need to meet more people. LOL! You mean I should carefully seek out people who share your world view. > TBH, > > based on my experiences on other parts of the WWWonderful, the views [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think so. Switzerland for example, singlehandly disqualifies your > statement. Most of those people never allow their cats outdoors. OK, my clarity's at fault here: I was really referring to attitudes in the US toward declaw - most rpch+b denizens are US citizens. Ha! I've just been guilty of UScentricity! And regarding Switzerland ... cite? > England, Scotland, (...) In fact, most of the civilized world opposes > declawing. Yes, the only place I am aware of where declawing exists as a routine procedure is the US. Once again, my earlier comment was really that the attitudes of US rpch+b'ers do not seem to be representative of US residents in general. Overall, I hope I'm wrong on this. (...) > You're right. Can't surf in Arizona. You can, it just hurts more. Steve. > (...) > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I see. So, if you work in animal rescue, all risks become equally > likely. An amazing effect. Practically magic. Naaa, its not magic, its reality. It only seems like magic to you because you're sitting too far away from the stage. > > in some > > > cases. For example, in Kolata et al.'s 1974 study (JAVMA 164: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Gosh, s'funny that you didn't emphasis this sample size I didn't have to. The bottom line was the 5,000 cats killed every year in Baltimore *just by cars*. > predictions will usally be OK within the type of populatation studied. Like Church & Lawyton's "study" of 78 cats in a backwoods village that were used to estimate the number of animals killed by cats in the whole of England? That was "ok", huh? LOL! Ooo ooo, how about all the "studies" of small groups of cats on remote islands that researchers used to determine cats are "asocial" and "solitary" creatures? Those were "ok", too, huh? LOL! I used to rely heavily on studies until I realized that many studies do not correlate with real life, first hand experiences. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of which 90% were unneutered, and 1 in 5 showed evidence of being > owned at some point in their life. Just what evidence was deduced from cats flattened into pancakes? The data were probably third hand and not reliable. Usually, if not always, the DPW or Sanatation Dept. clean up dead animals. These people are hardly trained to make such determinations. So, my guess is the so-called "evidence" was only a collar - since neither the DPW nor Sanatation Dept carry microchip scanners. The bottom line is 5,000 cats are killed every year in Baltimore - *just by vehicles alone*. Add to that number cats poisoned intentionally or accidentally - especially near winter when many people change antifreeze in their cars, killed by fighting with other cats, killed by infectious diseases contracted from other cats, killed by sadists, killed by dogs or predators, picked up by A/C and killed in municipal shelters, killed in engine compartments of cars during cold weather, and stolen to sell to laboratories or as "bait" for hunters. I'd say the number of free roaming cats killed every year in that one city is probably closer to 6 - 7,000. > > > Fleas and ticks are basically not an issue too, given the various > > > effective anti flea / tick products available. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Revolution effectively guards against heartworms. No prophylactic is 100% effective. Also, cats with low worm burdens (<5 worms) and single-sex infections often result in false negative test results. >40% of cats with adult infection are antigen-negative. Adverse effects of > Revolution, Frontline et al. are relatively rare, Pfizer was warned by the FDA to discontinue "inadequate and may be false and misleading" promotional material regarding Revolution's safety. http://maxshouse.com/Drugs/Revolution_FDA_warning_letter.pdf Warning from Revolution package insert reads: "May be irritating to skin and eyes. Wash hands after use and wash off any product in contact with the skin immediately -----." and I'm not aware of > any cumulative toxic effect via their application. See above. Neither Advantage or Frontline kills flea eggs or larvae. So, if you cat lies where there are flea eggs or larvae... Wha la! Reinfestation! Don't forget to flea-bomb the house - again, and again, and again. I see you've got a lot to learn about flea control, too. > (...) > > > > Seems you know as much about GPS units as you do about cats. Just > > kidding... or am I? > > I'm not sure WAAS you mean. You're a smart fellow, I think you'll figure it out eventually. > > As I said, perhaps you need to get out more. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You mean I should carefully seek out people who share your world view. That's not what I meant - but its a damn good idea! > > TBH, > > > based on my experiences on other parts of the WWWonderful, the views [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > OK, my clarity's at fault here: I was really referring to attitudes in > the US toward declaw - Silly me thought this disscussion was about free roaming cats. > And regarding Switzerland ... cite? What would you do without cites?! LOL! > > England, Scotland, (...) In fact, most of the civilized world opposes > > declawing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the attitudes of US rpch+b'ers do not seem to be representative of US > residents in general. That's because the general population of cat owners aren't as well informed and as well educated in feline welfare issues as most rpch+b'ers. I realize indoor/outdoors is your favorite subject, however, I really don't have the time to go around in circles with you again. That about sums it up for me. (...) > > I see. So, if you work in animal rescue, all risks become equally > > likely. An amazing effect. Practically magic. > > Naaa, its not magic, its reality. Hm, so you actually agree that all risks are equally likely. Bizarre indeed. (...) > > > Wow! A whopping 129 cats! That's sure a "reliable" sample size to > > > extrapolate to ~70 million cats! LOL! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I didn't have to. The bottom line was the 5,000 cats killed every year in > Baltimore *just by cars*. Er, not in the Kolata paper (which you have previously cited in an attempt to support a position of yours). The 5,000 number was from the Baltimore study, and is an estimate. > > predictions will usally be OK within the type of populatation studied. > > Like Church & Lawyton's "study" of 78 cats in a backwoods village that were > used to estimate the number of animals killed by cats in the whole of > England? That was "ok", huh? LOL! Read and comprehend, old son - "within the type of population studied". I.e., if there is a good reason to suggest sample bias, then it may indeed be unwise to accept wide-ranging extrapolations from the data. If the sample is small - but apparently representative - then things may be shipshape. It's not a difficult concept, just involves yer reading to be accompanied by thinkin'. > Ooo ooo, Hm, sounds like one of your cats has swiped your bollocks. (...) > I used to rely heavily on studies until I realized that many studies do not > correlate with real life, first hand experiences. Trans. 'I'll believe stuff that fits with my worldview, and damn the rest'. (...) > > Of which 90% were unneutered, and 1 in 5 showed evidence of being > > owned at some point in their life. > > Just what evidence was deduced from cats flattened into pancakes? Heh, the cats had been hit by cars, not steamrollers. Evidence was neutering and / or presence of a collar. > The data were probably third hand and not reliable. No, the researchers themselves determined probable ownership based on a subsample of the cats found. Neutering could even overstimate ownership; all it says is that the cat was probably owned at some point in its life, not necessarily owned at the point of death. > Usually, if not always, the DPW > or Sanatation Dept. clean up dead animals. These people are hardly trained > to make such determinations. So, my guess is the so-called "evidence" was > only a collar - since neither the DPW nor Sanatation Dept carry microchip > scanners. Well, given that you have not read the paper, it's no suprise to find you're wrong. In any case, I'm not sure that chipping would have been commonplace in 1986. > The bottom line is 5,000 cats are killed every year in Baltimore - *just by > vehicles alone*. You're not quite accurate here, either. An estimated 5,000 cats were killed via RTA in Baltimore in 1986. (...) > laboratories or as "bait" for hunters. I'd say the number of free roaming > cats killed every year in that one city is probably closer to 6 - 7,000. This sounds like a reasonable estimate. (...) > > Adverse effects of > > Revolution, Frontline et al. are relatively rare, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://maxshouse.com/Drugs/Revolution_FDA_warning_letter.pdf The letter points out a discrepancy between the promotional literature and the Revolution packaging. In the literature it suggests that no gloves are needed when applying Revolution, whereas on the packaging it suggests that the chemical may irritate human skin. You'll excuse me if I don't petition Pfizer based on this. > Warning from Revolution package insert reads: > > "May be irritating to skin and eyes. Wash hands after use and wash off any > product in contact with the skin immediately -----." Yes. Then again, the warning is directed at the human applying the drug, and it wasn't designed for flea control in humans now, was it? > and I'm not aware of > > any cumulative toxic effect via their application. > > See above. None of the above says anything whatsoever about cumulative toxicity. In obtaining FDA approval, the drug was administered at very high doses with minimal side effects (see http://www.revolution4cats.com/PAHimages/compliance_pdfs/US_EN_RV_compliance.pdf). > Neither Advantage or Frontline kills flea eggs or larvae. So, if you cat > lies where there are flea eggs or larvae... Wha la! Reinfestation! Don't > forget to flea-bomb the house - again, and again, and again. Well, the fleas hatch, suck 'pon the cat - then die. > I see you've got a lot to learn about flea control, too. Indeed? Seems rather simple to me. Place drug on cat's deck. Fleas die. No more fleas. Seems that you have some reading to do on cumulative toxicity. (...) > > I'm not sure WAAS you mean. > > You're a smart fellow, I think you'll figure it out eventually. Differentially, perhaps. (...) > > You mean I should carefully seek out people who share your world view. > > That's not what I meant - but its a damn good idea! I could do that. On the other hand, I could remove my own eyeballs with a spoon. (...) > Silly me thought this disscussion was about free roaming cats. Well you see, the thing about discussions is that they can also roam freely. > > And regarding Switzerland ... cite? > > What would you do without cites?! LOL! Remain cynical. (...) > That's because the general population of cat owners aren't as well informed > and as well educated in feline welfare issues as most rpch+b'ers. Possibly. > I realize indoor/outdoors is your favorite subject Oh, anywhere there's room for a bit of invective will suffice. > , however, I really don't > have the time to go around in circles with you again. Byeeee, S. > Well, the fleas hatch, suck 'pon the cat - then die. The fleas still must *bite* the cat to ingest the poison, old son. Some cats have a severe, intense allergic reaction to flea saliva. Frontline kills fleas within *18 hours* and ticks within 48 hours, so for 18 hours fleas will feast on your cat! When the cat goes out again, more fleas will *bite* the cat, feast for 18 hours, and die; and more fleas will *bite* the cat, feast for 18 hours and die, and more fleas will *bite* the cat feast for 18 hours, and die, and more fleas will *bite* the cat, feast for 18 hours and die. Do you see the pattern, old son? Frontline, nor Advantage nor Revolution do not *repel* fleas and ticks. The cat still gets *biten*. Now be sure not to forget about the fleas that will bite you. As I said, you have a lot to learn about flea control. > > I used to rely heavily on studies until I realized that many studies do not > > correlate with real life, first hand experiences. > > Trans. 'I'll believe stuff that fits with my worldview, and damn the > rest'. No translation necessary. When my >40 years of direct, personal, first hand, real life experience and training working with animals and the experience of many others who also actually work in the field absolutely contradict a study, you're goddamn right, "damn the rest". I'd bet you still believe cats are asocial because a study said so! LOL! I had to reply to this post - you were too funny to resist. (...) > Frontline, nor Advantage nor Revolution do not *repel* fleas and ticks. The > cat still gets *biten*. Now be sure not to forget about the fleas that will > bite you. > > As I said, you have a lot to learn about flea control. And yet in the Real World - that place you claim to inhabit - these flea control products work rather well. It also seems a bit ... inconsistent ... that not so long ago (http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1A921089) you were recommending Revolution as a safe and effective preventative, with cites to support, no less... (...) > > Trans. 'I'll believe stuff that fits with my worldview, and damn the > > rest'. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > experience of many others who also actually work in the field absolutely > contradict a study, you're goddamn right, "damn the rest". So, you - as a part timer with no formal quaifications in vet science AFAIK - consider yourself a superior authority than the researchers who work carefully and objectively, 9-5, on feline issues complete with full veterinary and research training. Very well. But cites though, cites. It's a sight to see you cite. You disparage the Kolata study ... so why did you cite Kolata *yourself* in this thread (http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2B931089)? Of course, the citation did not say what you claimed it did anyway, and as is now clear from this thread, nor had you read the study. Still, this is quite a pattern with you, the misrepresentation of scientific findings, is it not? For example: In this (http://makeashorterlink.com/?L3F711089) thread about purebred cats you used the Foley & Pedersen (1996; Fel Pract 24: 14-22) cite to suggest that purebred cats were fundamentally more likely to suffer from FIP. However, Foley & Pederson found that inbreeding was NOT related to increased incidence of FIP (they even have a subhead, all in caps - 'inbreeding is not associated with FIP', p. 18, as a clue). Here, (http://makeashorterlink.com/?L32926089) you suggest that people should not use conventional shampoos (or clean floors with Murphy's Oil Soap) in case cats get Heinz body anaemia via ingestion of propylene glycol from shampoo residue. However, the science (e.g., Hill et al., 2001, Am J Vet Res 62: 370-374; Christopher et al., 1990, Vet Pathol. 7:299-310) suggests that you are, in technical terms, fuckin' deranged. Indeed, as I noted then: "a cat would need to drink ~5 GALLONS of conventionally diluted Murphy's Oil Soap per day, for three weeks, in order to ingest the amount of PG used in Christopher at al. (1990). Jeepers creepers! That's one thirsty cat." Of course, back here ( http://makeashorterlink.com/?K65912089) you said "According to the Animal Protection Institute, BHA, BHT, and Ethoxyquin, have a proven synergistic effect that may lead to the development of certain types of cancer." But - lo and behold - you then seem to do a 180-degree flip-a-roo (http://makeashorterlink.com/?K57931089) "BHA, BHT and EQ are *all* used in human foods which thus makes BHA, BHT and EQ *human grade ingredients* LOL!" LOL indeed. You must be a member of the Kerry electoral campaign. > I'd bet you still believe cats are asocial because a study said so! LOL! > > I had to reply to this post - you were too funny to resist. Oh, I'm having the odd chuckle meself, like. Well Phil, although you are clearly a knowledgable chap regarding cats - and perhaps the most knowledgable on this group, indeed - you do seem to suffer from the occasional case of science blindness, when your personal views and inability to admit errors force you down sh.t creek, sans paddle. Still, hold yer nose and drift on, dude. Steve. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And yet in the Real World - that place you claim to inhabit - these > flea control products work rather well. Yes they do old son - but they don't *repel* fleas or ticks! The cat must be *bitten* *first* for them to work. I think you keep missing that point or it doesn't mean much to you. > > > Trans. 'I'll believe stuff that fits with my worldview, and damn the > > > rest'. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > who work carefully and objectively, 9-5, on feline issues complete > with full veterinary and research training. Very well. As I said, when my >40 years of direct, personal, first hand, real life experience and training working with animals and the experience of many others who also actually work in the field absolutely contradict a study, you're goddam right! You can translate that any way you want,old son. As I said, do you believe cats are asocial because a study says so? LOL! <mega snip> Gee, you spent all that time trying to divert attention away from the fact that you don't know sh.t about basic flea control! LOL! You sure spent a lot of time on me; I'd be flattered if you weren't such an a.shole. (...) > Yes they do old son - but they don't *repel* fleas or ticks! Feel free to point out where I claimed they did. At your leisure. (...) > As I said, do you believe cats are asocial because a study says so? LOL! What study? Given your cavalier approach to reading and interpreting science, who knows what this study actually says. In any case, mammals in general are very rarely truly 'asocial'. AFAIK, mammals all exhibit 'social' behaviours to a greater or lesser degree. Well, Hamsters may be the exception, though perhaps there are others? ISTR Zebra mice are 'somewhat' asocial, though it's a while since I read anything about them. > <mega snip> > > Gee, you spent all that time trying to divert attention away No, I was trying to direct attention toward some examples of your self-contradictory and illogical episodes. Others can read the threads I linked to, if they're so inclined, and make their own decisions. > from the fact > that you don't know sh.t about basic flea control! LOL! Still, at least I don't recommend specific flea control remedies and then later claim that they are ineffective and / or dangerous, eh? > You sure spent a lot of time on me; I'd be flattered if you weren't such an > a.shole. Oh, very little time spent - I have a fully functioning memory, y'see - and it was an amusing few minutes in any case. Ta ta, S. > (...) > > > > Yes they do old son - but they don't *repel* fleas or ticks! The cat still gets bitten. > Feel free to point out where I claimed they did. At your leisure. I didn't say you said the products repel fleas, now did I, old son? I said you missed the point that the cat gets *bitten* continuously for 18 hours and then again for another 18 hours the next time the cat goes out and gets infested, and again, and again, and again. Either you missed the point or you just don't care because it didn't seem to bother you. Your first lesson: A major part of a successful flea control program is preventing reinfestation, old son. When you learn the basics of cat care, we'll move on to more complicated issues. > > <mega snip> > > > > Gee, you spent all that time trying to divert attention away from the fact that you don't know sh.t about basic flea control > No, I was trying to direct attention toward some examples of your > self-contradictory and illogical episodes. Others can read the threads > I linked to, if they're so inclined, and make their own decisions. Decisions for what? Whom to vote for? LOL! Are you running for newgroup president or some other office, old son? ROTFL! (...) > When you learn the basics of cat care, we'll move on to more complicated > issues. Complexity called. She doesn't want to see you again. It's for your own benefit. (...) > Decisions for what? Whom to vote for? LOL! Are you running for newgroup > president or some other office, old son? ROTFL! Oh, for example, decisions about whether your inability to admit errors leads you to misquote research, to claim that papers say things they do not, to contradict yourself, to defend indefensible and bizarre positions, and so on. Simple enough, senator? S. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Complexity called. She doesn't want to see you again. It's for your > own benefit. Great! Maybe now she'll have some extra time to teach you basic cat care - starting with basic flea control. > > Decisions for what? Whom to vote for? LOL! Are you running for newgroup > > president or some other office, old son? ROTFL! > > Oh, for example, decisions about whether your inability to admit > errors I most certainly do have the ability to admit errors, gov... I just very, very rarely use it. LOL! You don't seem to have the ability to admit your ignorance of basic cat care - maybe that's why you only seem to look for debates rather than contribute any constructive feline advice. I guess you're a master d'bater. LOL! I can see you'll go on and on like a bad case of diarrhea, so I'll tell you what, old son, I'll let you have the last word. It obviously means so much to you. LOL! (...) > care - maybe that's why you only seem to look for debates Or discussions, this being a discussion group. (...) > I can see you'll go on and on like a bad case of diarrhea, so I'll tell you > what, old son, I'll let you have the last word. And the last words are: takes 2 2 tango. HTH HAND, S. > > Hello. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Phil Why, what did the cat do? I am curious. > > > Hello. > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > Why, what did the cat do? I am curious. Slept, rested and groomed! They only spent a small portion of their time actually doing something.... > > > > Hello. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Slept, rested and groomed! They only spent a small portion of their time > actually doing something.... So they got all the benefits of indoor cats with none of the safety. I see. > > > > > Hello. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > So they got all the benefits of indoor cats with none of the safety. I see. Exactly. I think its funny when outdoor proponents tell stories about their cats visiting neighbors' homes through their cat flaps. They let the cat out to go *outdoors*... and the cats go *indoors*! LOL! (...) > So they got all the benefits of indoor cats with none of the safety. I see. Behaviors expressed indoors and outdoors are not exactly the same. If I walk around my kitchen for 8hrs, this isn't the same as going for a walk in the hills. Cats could express all of their behaviours if they spent their entire life living in a bathroom. Or a cage. Or a big cardboard box. However, that doesn't mean that a bathroom-dwelling cardboard-box cat would be a Good Thing, or that the behaviours expressed by said cat would be complete or even sufficient. Steve. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a Good Thing, or that the behaviours expressed by said cat would be > complete or even sufficient. Talk about a straw man argument! LOL! > Hello. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > quality video for such small cameras, and they are also quite cheap so > it wouldn't be a problem if it got damaged. Maybe you should be exploring the possibilities of gps tracking devices instead of cameras: http://www.gps-practice-and-fun.com/gps-pet-tracking.html The issue of cat tracking is specifically addressed near the bottom of the page- they anticipate that next year's devices may be small enough for such purposes. Our cats sleep for about 16 hours a day I think, which makes them very easy to keep track of. Regards, Ian. The range of spycams or surreilance cams is a hundred feet so it would be impracticle for anything beyond your house. People do implant chips in their cats and dogs so they can be identified if found by someone else when they get lost. There are ways to remotely watch your home through the internet if you have surveilance cams hooked up but this could not work with a moving animal. For wireless you would have to have something like the phone cams used by TV journalists and this would not be practical for a pet at this point in time. In the future this might be possible if things get miniatureized more. > Hello. > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > John >The range of spycams or surreilance cams is a hundred feet so it would be >impracticle for anything beyond your house. People do implant chips in their >cats and dogs so they can be identified if found by someone else when they >get lost. Yes, we can now have pet passports in Britain. I think it is just for Dogs at the moment though but maybe for cats too I'm not sure? There is a very tiny microchip placed under the skin of the animal which when you put the scanner over the pet it brings up the number that is also the same number inside the passport. It is in the European Union for safe transit of pets over borders and to show that they don't have rabies etc and are healthy, as well as for their identification. These microchips though I don't believe work with positioning (maybe I am wrong on that) but I understand they are just for scanners to id the pet if lost then found, and for immigration and passport control in the EU. >There are ways to remotely watch your home through the internet if >you have surveilance cams hooked up but this could not work with a moving >animal. For wireless you would have to have something like the phone cams >used by TV journalists and this would not be practical for a pet at this >point in time. They have already done it though with a small domestic cat. I believe the BBC or SKY made the film. >In the future this might be possible if things get >miniatureized more. I would agree it is not good at the moment for an average person to do and will have to wait a bit longer. The smallest wireless camera I have seen is about the size of a one penny piece. If you include minimal small battery to provide a small duration of power you would probably be able to have the whole package the size of a matchbox. 3cm x 2cm perhaps. With this cat though it would have to be a lot smaller and a lot less obvious and noticeable otherwise he would take it apart in seconds :) As far as the range of the devices go, I don't believe that would be much of a problem. Some I have seen have a range up to 300 meters. Some less to only 100. I don't see this as much of a problem because the cats territory here in urban England is not that big a range, it is within a close radius of the home. The problem I can see, is if it ventures into other homes to visit its cat friends then the picture might disappear with the extra walls being an obstacle. I am going to keep researching and hoping for smaller cams to be available then I will make the film followed by phone call to Stephen Spielberg. "Close Encounters of the Cat Kind!" That has a nice ring to it don't you think? Or perhaps I will call George Lucas with my proposal "Attack of the Cats" You never know though, perhaps I will call Hugh Hefner at the Playboy Mansion, if the film shows him with a lot of his cat girlfriends. Their new logo could be the cat instead of the bunny. John |
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.