Latest on MJJC

To Catlovers

Re: to catlovers

527071_426060314157591_1484590339_n.jpg


534850_425981000832189_1624696832_n.jpg


1664_425919640838325_902709551_n.jpg
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xqdaA0AB83A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
it´s nice to hear that animal control are starting to change and see there are better ways then to kill.
I wish animal control in Sweden would listen and learn too.
Maybe one day
 
Last edited:
The Life of a Wild Cat
March 30, 2013 by Nathan J. Winograd

Excerpted from Friendly Fire by Nathan & Jennifer Winograd.

The law would have been simple. Senate Bill 359, a bill pending in the Virginia legislature in 2012, would have clarified that neutering and releasing feral cats back to their habitats was not illegal, allowing cat advocates to continue doing so without fear of prosecution. But PETA successfully led the effort to oppose the law, joining kill shelters throughout the state and the Virginia Animal Control Association in defeating it.

While cats as a whole face a roughly 60 percent chance of being killed in shelters, when those cats are “unsocial,” the percentage becomes nearly 100 percent. At shelters across the country, without TNR, every unsocial cat is put to death. And groups like PETA believe this is as it should be. According to these and other groups, cats belong in homes or they should be killed. To these organizations, the practice of TNR is setting the cats up for a lifetime of suffering, a claim which they and others use to round up and exterminate thousands of healthy and happy cats every year in communities across the country.

But is it true? In fact, it is not. Several studies confirm that from the cat’s perspective, the great outdoors really is great. A comprehensive 11-year study of outdoor cats found that they had similar baselines in health, disease rates and longevity as indoor cats. A subsequent study gave feral cats “A+” grades across a wide range of physical and health characteristics. In yet another study, less than one percent of over 100,000 feral cats admitted to seven major TNR programs across the United States were killed for debilitating conditions; while a fourth survey across 132 colonies of cats in north central Florida showed that 96 percent of the cats had a “good” or “great” quality of life.

And yet, even if it were true that these cats were disproportionately suffering outdoors, it would not change what the ethical response should be. It is never okay to kill an individual cat based on a group dynamic. If we were to postulate, for the sake of argument, that most feral cats die prematurely due to disease or injury, it would still be unethical to kill any individual cat because not only do that cat’s inherent rights ethically prohibit it, but we would never know if that particular cat will ever succumb to such a fate, let alone when.

Moreover, even if we did, even if we knew that a cat would get hit by a car two years from now, it isn’t ethical to rob him of those two years by killing him now. In the end, the answer from opponents of TNR programs—that we should stop cats from being killed by killing the cats ourselves—is a hopeless contradiction. But the contradiction goes even deeper.
While traditional shelters argue that all cats are the same, need the same things (namely, an indoor home), and should be treated the same because they cannot live outside, they themselves hold feral cats to a different standard. Once in the shelter, a “friendly” cat may be deemed suitable for adoption, while an “unfriendly” cat, by contrast, is killed outright, in some cases within minutes of arriving because they conclude such cats are “unadoptable” or unsuited for life inside a human home.



Biological Xenophobia
While some groups oppose allowing feral cats to live out their lives by arguing it is “for their own good,” others do so because they argue that cats are decimating bird populations and therefore deserve to die. Not only does the science contradict these claims,* but the idea that some animals have more value than others comes from a troubling belief that lineage determines the value of an individual animal. This belief is part of a growing and disturbing movement called “Invasion Biology.” The notion that “native” species have more value than “non-native” ones finds its roots historically in 1940s Germany, where the notion of a garden with native plants was founded on nationalistic and racist ideas cloaked in scientific jargon. This is not surprising. The types of arguments made for biological purity of people are exactly the same as those made for purity among animals and plants.

In the United States, Invasion Biologists believe that certain plants or animals should be valued more than others if they were at a particular location “first,” although the exact starting point varies, is difficult to ascertain and, in many cases, is wholly arbitrary. Indeed, all plants and animals were introduced (by wind, humans, migration or other animals) at some point in time. But regardless of which arbitrary measure is used, Invasion Biologists ultimately make the same, unethical assertions that “introduced” or “non-native” species are not worthy of life or compassion. They conclude that these species should be eradicated in order to “restore” an area to some fixed point in the past.

Nature, however, cannot be frozen in time or returned to a particular past, nor is there a compelling reason why it should be. To claim that “native” species are somehow preferable than “introduced” species equally or better adapted to a changing environment ignores the inevitable forces of migration and natural selection. All animals have a right to live, regardless of how and when they arrived or were “introduced.” Their rights as individuals supersede our own human-centric preferences, which are often based on arbitrary biases, subjective aesthetics or narrow commercial interests.

Moreover, no matter how many so-called “non-native” animals (and plants) are killed, the goal of total eradication can never be reached because, quite simply, nature is not static, nor is it possible to force it to become so. To advocate for the eradication of feral cats is not only cruel and unethical, it is to propose a massacre with no hope of success and no conceivable end.

Equally inconsistent in the philosophy of Invasion Biology is its position—or, more accurately, lack of a coherent position—on humans. If one accepts the logic that only native plants and animals have value, human beings are the biggest non-native intruders in the United States. With over 300 million of us altering the landscape and causing virtually all of the environmental and species decimation through habitat destruction and pollution, shouldn’t Invasion Biologists demand that non-native people leave the continent? Of course, non-profit organizations that advocate nativist positions would never dare say so, or donations to their causes would dry up. Instead, they engage in a great hypocrisy of doing that which they claim to abhor and blame “non-native” species for doing: preying on those who cannot defend themselves.

In addition, it is not “predation” that Invasion Biologists actually object to. Animals prey on other animals all the time without their objection. In fact, they themselves prey on some birds by eating them, and they prey on animals they label “non-native” by eradicating them. For Invasion Biologists, predation is unacceptable only when it involves an animal they do not like. And when it comes to animals they do not like, animals who do not pass their narrow litmus test of who is worthy to live and who should die, the cat stands at the top as “Public Enemy No. 1.”

Teaching Tolerance, Respecting Diversity
The ultimate goal of the environmental movement is to create a peaceful and harmonious relationship between humans and the environment. To be authentic, this goal must include respect for other species who share our planet. And yet, given its alarming embrace of Invasion Biology, the environmental movement has violated this ethic by targeting species for eradication because their existence conflicts with the world as some humans would like it to be. Condemning animals to death because they violate a preferred sense of order does not reject human interference in the natural world as they claim; it reaffirms it. And in championing such views, the movement paradoxically supports the use of traps, poisons, fire and hunting, all of which cause great harm, suffering and environmental degradation—the very things they ostensibly exist to oppose.

Over the last 250 years, the story of humanity has been the story of the human rights movement—of overcoming our darker natures by learning tolerance for the foreign and respect for the diverse. In the early 21st century, these are the cherished ideals to which humanity aspires in our treatment of one another. And yet when it comes to our relationship with other species, these values are turned on their head, and environmentalists—the very people who should be promoting tolerance and compassion for all Earthlings regardless of their antecedents—are instead teaching disdain for some, leading the charge to kill them and turning our beautiful, natural places into war zones and battlefields. We need a different, more humane and more responsible way of seeing the world and our place in it.

For in the end, not only is it wrong to label any species an “alien” on its own planet and to target that species for extermination, but it is also breathtakingly myopic. On a tiny planet surrounded by the infinite emptiness of space, in a universe in which the anomaly of life renders every blade of grass, every insect that crawls and every animal on Earth an exquisite, wondrous rarity, it is quite simply inaccurate to label any living thing found anywhere on the planet which gave it life as “alien” or “non-native.” There is no such thing as an “invasive” species.

We must turn our attention away from the futile and pointless effort to return our environment to the past toward the meaningful goal of ensuring that every life that appears on this Earth is welcomed and respected as the glorious, cosmic miracle it actually is.
Click to expand...
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=12492
 
Re: to catlovers

TNR on the Asbury Park Boardwalk
 
Alley Cat Allies National Conference
Architects of Change for Cats • November 8-10, 2013 • Arlington, VA

Together we can build a safe world for cats.
Join us and leading industry experts to receive blueprints for successfully changing your community for cats.

http://www.alleycat.org/conference
 
Re: to catlovers

Cats who got new homes in barns
 
Re: to catlovers



Francis story told by the uploader of the video

Found this tiny little crying kitty all alone in the cold, blinded by a goopy infection. i brought him in and his whole life turned around. Watch as he grows and gets better :)

Thanks everyone for viewing :) i made this a year ago hoping it may at least get 100 views and i can't believe today it's hit 100,000! I made the video to show the true effects irresponsible pet owning.
My neighbor years ago let their un-neutered cat roam wild and she of course eventually got pregnant, and then had her babies in the wild. Eventually her babies had babies, and her babies' babies had babies, and soon there was a whole overwhelming cat colony, circulating horrible diseases, viruses, and all ridden with fleas, ticks, and worms (and this was the point when i moved next door).

As just a kid i couldn't bare to see all of them live like that next door, and i really couldn't bare to see them trying to survive the winters, especially kittens :( The neighbors, an elderly couple who didn't know how to take care of the situation they created, at least fed the cats, so as a kid i would at least help feed them, and give them warm wet food in the winter, but later i finally realized how i could REALLY help, and have been finding ways to give them medicine and get them fixed or find them homes for the past 4 years.

Finally after all the hard work, the colony has dropped from over 20, to now only 2 male cats who are doing well. I could have just called the shelter but i know they would have just put them all to sleep due to sickness (97% of cats get put down at my shelter as it is), and not all of them were wild, but friendly and sweet, and i couldn't do that. All the hard work was worth the happy ending.

I have now saved many more cats than Francis, and am now thinking about making more videos about all the rescues because they all have their own very interesting story, but Francis' story is still one of my most favorite rescue stories :)

But to think, allll of this started with one couple failing to neuter their pet. We need to realize that once upon a time we domesticated these animals and it is now our responsibility to take care of them and make sure we dont just let them reproduce wildly till their populations are out of our control, cause when that happens the world's answer is to just put them down, which is sadly exactly what happens to millions of pets in shelters every year, because shelters dont have enough room, because there are too many!
There are only so many available homes for homeless pets, so lets take care of our pet population the responsible way, right at the start, and neuter your pets! (unless your a breeder ofcourse)
Click to expand...
 
Virtual Shelter Tour

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=25
You have the text and pictures in the link

Shelters kill every day in the U.S. despite empty cages. Empty cages mean less cleaning, less work, less effort for shelter staff. Empty cages can be found in many shelters throughout the country. Here, a shelter keeps most of the cat cages empty during the height of the busy summer season despite falsely claiming it has no choice but to kill cats “for space.”

Staff cut corners by cleaning dog kennels with high pressure hoses and caustic chemicals while leaving the dogs in the run, instead of removing them as they should. The dogs either become sick or become fearful of people and then are killed as “unadoptable.” Here, dogs are wet and shivering after being sprayed with water and chemicals.

They call it “humane euthanasia” but shelter killing is often anything but humane. Even the methods used are troublesome. Some shelters place dogs and cats in gas chambers like the one here. Gas systems take time to kill–during which animals experience distress and anxiety, and can struggle to survive. They can result in animals surviving the gassing, only to suffer more. And they take longer to kill if animals are young, old, or have respiratory infections, which can be common in shelters. They are designed for the ease of shelter workers, not care and compassion for the animals and should never be used.

View a video of animals being gassed and then being thrown in a dumpster: Gas Chambers

The preferred method of killing in the U.S. is an overdose of barbiturates. Although better than gas systems by far, lethal injection is not always painless either, as anyone who has witnessed the killing of animals in shelters can attest. With some animals, there is fear, disorientation, nausea and many times even a struggle. A dog who is skittish, for example, is made even more fearful by the smells and surroundings of the animal shelter. He doesn’t understand why he is there and away from the only family he has ever loved. To kill this dog, he may have to be “catch poled,” a device that wraps a hard-wire noose around the dog’s neck. He struggles to free himself from the grip, only to result in more fear and pain when he realizes he cannot. The dog often urinates and defecates on himself, unsure of what is occurring. Often the head is held hard to the ground or against the wall so that another staff member can enter the kennel and inject him with a sedative. While the catch-pole is left around the neck, the dog struggles to maintain his balance, he tries to stand, but his legs give way. He is frightened by the people around him. He does not understand what is happening. He goes limp and then unconscious. That is when staff administers the fatal dose.

Video of a dog being dragged with a catch-pole: Catch Pole

(Caution: this film videotaped inside a major U.S. animal shelter is graphic.)

Video of a dog being killed by injection and then being thrown in a dumpster: Dog Killing

(Caution: this film videotaped inside a major U.S. animal shelter is very graphic)



We are a nation of cat lovers. The cat is the most popular pet in America, with about 90 million of them sharing our homes. The vast majority will be killed, many without ever being offered for adoption. Here, a filthy litter box–one hour after the cage was supposedly “cleaned.”

From algae covered water bowls for dogs, to rabbits with no water, to puppies languishing with no care, too many U.S. animal shelters neglect, abuse and needlessly kill animals.

Whose fault is it anyway?

To this day, animal shelters continue to ignore their own culpability in the killing, while professing to lament it as entirely the fault of the public’s failure to spay/neuter or to make lifetime commitments to their animals. Instead of embracing the No Kill philosophy, many shelters are still not sterilizing animals before adoption or providing the public with affordable alternatives. Some do not have foster care programs and do not socialize and/or rehabilitate dogs with behavior issues. Still others do not take animals offsite for adoption, have not developed partnerships with rescue groups, limit volunteerism, are not practicing trap-neuter-release for feral cats, and still retain adoption hours that make it difficult for working people or families to visit the shelter. The failure to implement these programs is mostly the result of one fact: they believe a certain level of killing is acceptable. Indeed, some would go as far as to deny they are even killing.

In March of 2006, at the largest national animal sheltering conference in the United States, a featured speaker and expert on “euthanasia” flatly denied that shelters were even killing animals: “We are not killing [animals in shelters]. We are taking their life, we are ending their life, we are giving them a good death… but we are not killing.”

Listen Here

When you sugarcoat the words, you do not make the act more palatable.

The power to change the status quo is in your hands.
 
Re: to catlovers

I had to put my my Kitty Tonyboy to sleep, I got him from friends of strays when he was 6 months old. He was almost 20 yrs old and was dying. He seemed at peace but I was worried he may suffer. I've been very sensitive the last few days over it :cry: He was so beautiful and my sweet baby boy.


23lnspx.jpg


2605ov7.jpg
 
Re: to catlovers

qbee said:
I had to put my my Kitty Tonyboy to sleep, I got him from friends of strays when he was 6 months old. He was almost 20 yrs old and was dying. He seemed at peace but I was worried he may suffer. I've been very sensitive the last few days over it :cry: He was so beautiful and my sweet baby boy.


23lnspx.jpg


2605ov7.jpg
Click to expand...

He is cute !!! He had a long and great life , that's definitely the most important... A big big hug to you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top