Veterinarian guilty of "disgraceful conduct" for not euthanising a cat on request

NEWS AND COMMENT: This is a rather disturbing and at the same time interesting story. I think, my sympathies lie with the veterinarian and not with the adjudicating panel who found her guilty of 'disgraceful conduct'.

The vet's name is Dr. Janine Parody. She was employed as a veterinary clinic and was described as an excellent veterinarian. She had 10 years experience at the time.

Dr. Janine Parody. Image: Facebook.

A woman involved in cat rescue it seems came to the veterinary clinic where she worked and asked Dr. Parody to euthanise a youngish male cat (8-months old) named Shadow who had an MRSA infection, was thin and had facial injuries. It appears that the cat was a street cat and had been injured and contracted the infection while leading a very difficult life.

The cat rescuer arranged for Dr. Parody to euthanise shallow on December 20, 2021.

At the time Dr. Parody was stressed and had euthanised a few cats that day already. She made the point, as other veterinarians have made, that euthanising pets is stressful and it leaves its mark. She said that you tend to take euthanasia home with you.

It was during the Covid-19 pandemic and these factors put together drove her to disregard her client's instructions to euthanise Shallow and she sedated him instead I guess to give the impression that she had euthanised him. The client went home and Dr. Paoli took Shadow home with the intention of treating him at home.

She sterilised him and removed his microchip and put a new one in. We don't know whether the one she put in contained her details or not. But she did say that she had no intention of adopting Shadow. It should be said that at the time Shadow had no owner because he was a rescue cat and had simply been rescued and brought to the clinic.

And therefore if she did intend to keep the cat she can't be accused of stealing or attempting to steal.

Anyway, after two months, Shallow's condition had not improved and Dr. Parody decided to put him to sleep at that time and owned up to what she had done to her client. Her client was shocked and elated and agreed to pay the £480 cost of treatment that Dr. Parody had administered.

The matter was investigated and Dr. Parody resigned her position at the clinic. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons tribunal found Dr. Parody guilty of disgraceful conduct and issued her with a reprimand.

At the hearing she said the following:

"I understand that my decision not to euthanise Shadow and instead to treat him without the consent of Ms SM was wrong.

"It was a decision I made on a very, very busy and stressful day and when I thought the cat had no owner but I fully appreciate that was no excuse.

"Once I had made that one decision, I did not revisit my decision but simply continued to treat the cat as best I could at an extremely stressful time.

"I accept that as a result of my decision and actions that the lady who had brought the cat in and who I now know was SM, was misled into thinking that it had been put to sleep and this is something I very much regret.

"My actions with regard to this cat all snowballed from my decision to treat the cat on 20 December and not put him to sleep.

"I know I should not have done this but because the cat was young and the condition curable, I felt that I was acting with the welfare of the cat at the centre of my decisions."

Comment: it's hard to know exactly what was in the mind of Dr. Parody at the time that she took this course of action. My gut feeling is that she in fact did want to adopt the cat because she did, after all, change the microchip. It doesn't really change the outcome although her motivations are important.

As you can see, she found Shadow to be a happy cat in her consulting room. I should think that he was probably an attractive cat to but I don't know. This vet has a heart. This is what makes her a good veterinarian. Euthanasia is always difficult both for the client and for the veterinarian. It should only happen after a good consultation with a good veterinarian and the timing of euthanasia is critical. It should not be delayed because the cat's owner doesn't want to relinquish their cat and say goodbye to them and likewise it should not be conducted to soon for obvious reasons.

---------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

North Haven, Connecticut, community in uproar over trapping and euthanizing feral cats

NEWS AND COMMENT: The video tells the story nicely. I can't guarantee that this video will stay on this page forever. If it disappears I'm sorry. North Haven is approx. 100+ miles northeast of New York City.

The nub of the story is that the authorities in North Haven, Connecticut, USA were receiving complaints about feral and stray cats in their community and there was a decision, it appears, to trap and euthanise i.e. kill these cats but then this story rattled around social media, particularly Facebook as I understand it, and the community reacted to the news by rejecting the concept of euthanising these cats. There are better solutions. They are correct. 

This information was fed back to the authorities and they responded wisely and sensibly by changing their policy and the animal shelters in the area, the non-profits, have also stepped up to help remedy this situation. That's what I get from the video. I will add some detail from the written word on Yahoo News!.

A New Haven councillor has confirmed that they will not be euthanising feral cats after animal control declared that they would euthanise feral cats after trapping them.

Animal control in New Haven post on Facebook on Friday that they would start trapping euthanising the cats at the beginning of October. The post was then deleted apparently after a community backlash in comments.

I like that! The community often rallies around when there is an injustice about to be perpetrated towards animals. Essentially, the American citizen is sensitive towards animal welfare. There are many millions of Americans who are very tender towards stray and feral cats. Often they become volunteers in TNR programs and help them directly. These are great people. They deserve all the praise in the world.

The police stated that the trapping of the cats was "prompted by complaints of feral cats in the area, causing unsanitary conditions, as well as danger to domestic animals."

Apparently a dog had their eye scratched by a cat that attacked it. Comment: that wouldn't surprise me because the cat was in a defensive mode and attacked the dog because they felt threatened. And when a cat attacks a dog they slap the dog around the face with their claws which clearly in this instance caused an eye injury. This is unsurprising. I don't think it is a reason to trap and euthanise cats! And clearly the community agrees with me.

Police in general are often a bit negative towards feral cats. And in this instance they said that feral cats are carrying diseases like rabies in toxoplasmosis and damaging gardens, lawns and flower beds and cars et cetera. Comment: one can paint a negative picture about feral cats. It's quite easy. But you have to go back to the original root cause which is careless human cat ownership. The problem is a human problem and therefore the problem needs to be fixed humanely. Often the police are unaware of this.

Anyway, the end result as I understand it is a good one. The cats will be trapped but taken to shelters where if possible they will be rehomed. Some of these cats will be stray domestic cats and therefore can be rehomed. The true adult feral cat will probably be euthanised although even adult feral cats can be socialised but it takes time, sometimes as long as 12 months or more which is going to be beyond the means and abilities or capacity of the animal shelters but perhaps individual volunteers might step up.

--------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Please urgently email California State Assembly Committee to save rescue animals

As an American you can help save the lives of rescue animals now. This is an opportunity for America's animal advocates, cat lovers, dog lovers and others to do something about the killing of rescue animals.

I'm not lecturing people. That's the last thing I want to do. I am simply publicising a way for Americans to do something about reducing the number of rescue animals killed at shelters. I'd do it myself but I believe this method can only be carried out by Americans.

That's because they're going to have to email California's legislature where they are debating a bill called AB 2265. It's a piece of legislation which is passionately supported by Nathan Winograd, American's most influential and most knowledgeable animal shelter expert and animal advocate.

AB 2265 makes it obligatory for shelters to tell the world through social media (normally) that they are going to euthanise an animal and in doing this they offer the chance for others to step in and save that animal by fostering them or adopting them or by another shelter taking them in.

It's a way, as I see it, of shelters giving full warning to others that they going to euthanise an animal rather than doing it in an ad hoc, secretive way which is what happened to Gabriel, a dog.

This is what Nathan Winograd says about Gabriel and his email to me:

Gabriel arrived at a Los Angeles County “shelter” with a probable broken jaw. Rather than provide medical care or contact rescuers for assistance, the staff found it easier to kill him — and that is what they did. The little puppy who should have had his whole life ahead of him would be alive today if AB 2265, which requires pre-killing notification to rescuers, was the law.

Winograd provides an example of the kind of letter you can write to the Assembly Committee which is hearing the bill and to urge them to vote yes on AB 2265. You can use email and therefore to do this will probably take you about 20 minutes and if enough Americans did it it could sway California's legislature to pass this bill and save lives in the years ahead.

Sample email

Subject:

YES on AB 2265

Sample Body:

AB 2265 would require California shelters to notify adopters and rescuers before killing an animal. Given that such notifications are possible through existing websites, social media, and shelter software already used by these facilities or available for free, complying would require nothing more than a stroke on a keyboard: one click to notify rescuers that a life needs saving. Can the animals and the people who love them count on you to vote YES?

---------------

The email is sent to the following:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected] 

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected] 

[email protected]

[email protected] 

[email protected] 

[email protected] 

[email protected], 

[email protected] 

[email protected] 

[email protected] 

[email protected]

I have suggested that Americans generally can do this. I think they can but I'm not entirely sure that Americans in states other than California can be involved in campaigning for this bill in California. I can't see why they can't do it. But if I'm wrong then I apologise.

If I am wrong then this article would be directed at Californians.

-----------------

Nathan Winograd's email to California's legislature:

The No Kill Advocacy Center’s letter in support of AB 2265:

The Hon. Marc Berman, Chair, and Members
California State Assembly Committee on Business and Professions
1315 10th St
Sacramento, CA 9581

Re: YES on AB 2265, as to be amended

Dear Chair Berman and Committee Members,

The No Kill Advocacy Center urges a Yes vote on AB 2265 (McCarty). 

The bill would increase the number of animals rescued at private expense, instead of killed at public cost, by requiring shelters to post a minimum 24-hour notice of their intent to do so. Since nonprofit organizations often rescue from multiple shelters, rescue particular breeds, are run by people with other jobs, and are foster-care based, AB 2265 gives them notice of animals needing rescue at multiple shelters without having to travel to each one while giving them time to arrange foster care and accept custody of animals before they are killed. 

When animal welfare organizations work collaboratively, more lives are saved, wasteful taxpayer expenditures are reduced, revenues for municipal and private shelters increase, and community economic and social benefits ensue. Shelters would not incur additional costs because shelters can provide notice on an existing website or through social media. These lists can also be created using freely available shelter management software. Indeed, the bill will result in overall savings, as more animals are sent to nonprofit organizations, shifting the cost of care from taxpayer to private philanthropy and eliminating expenses associated with killing animals and disposing of their dead bodies. In addition to direct savings, a University of Denver study of this kind of legislation found a positive economic impact on businesses and increased sales tax revenues due to subsequent spending by rescuers and adopters on those animals. 

The California Animal Welfare Association (“CalAnimals”), a lobbying organization for municipal pounds that kill animals, argues that posting pending “euthanasia” would make them look bad. However, taxpayers have a right to know how their local shelters operate. More importantly, shelters would kill fewer animals, reduce staff workload, stress, and mental suffering, and increase the number of residents who volunteer. Finally, the increasing placement of animals due to the notice would improve their community standing. 

CalAnimals also argues that proposed changes in Food & Agric. Code §17005 removing “adoptable” and “treatable” language would lead to animal suffering, threats to public safety, and overcrowding. This is categorically false, as they are well aware. 

First, the proposed language explicitly excludes irremediably suffering animals. It also adds rigor to the definition of “suffering” as California “shelters” kill animals for highly curable conditions like diarrhea, conjunctivitis (pink eye), and respiratory infections (the human equivalent of a common cold) by calling those conditions untreatable. Indeed, they kill healthy animals.

Second, AB 2265 would not change longstanding state laws regarding dangerous dogs and dogs with a history of vicious behavior. Public safety would not be negatively impacted since these dogs are exempted from the notification and placement requirements. The University of Denver study also concluded that legislation of this type was not only consistent with public safety but also improved it, noting positive impacts on “public health, social capital, and community engagement,” all of which have “important implications for [a community’s] ability to promote and sustain the health and well-being of both its human and non-human animal residents.” 

Third, as policy provisions, these sections do not change legal obligations. These changes are meant to clarify long-standing existing laws that CalAnimals members have intentionally twisted to kill animals despite qualified rescue groups ready, willing, and able to save them. It has also been the subject of several costly lawsuits, all of which the shelters have lost. The changes would eliminate the need to force shelters to comply with existing laws through litigation.

Fourth, AB 2265’s notification requirement is coextensive with the state-mandated holding period of 72 hours. Shelters can give notice during this period, alerting the public that the animals may be killed when the state-mandated holding period expires, adding no additional holding time.

When lobbying organizations resort to knowingly lying to legislators, it is clear any legitimate basis for their opposition is weak to non-existent. None of this is surprising. CalAnimals members have a history of opposing any legislation to improve outcomes in their facilities, including the 1998 Animal Shelter Law (Hayden), which this Committee has historically credited with improving outcomes for shelter animals, including provisions “to increase the number of animals reunited with owners,” establishing “minimum holding periods for all owner-relinquished animals,” releasing “animals slated for euthanasia to rescue groups upon request,” providing for “prompt and necessary veterinary care, nutrition, and shelter,” and more. 

These improvements were passed over the opposition of the California Animal Welfare Association (then known as the California Animal Control Directors Association and State Humane Association) and its members (who currently constitute opposition to AB 2265). And they were passed overwhelmingly by supermajorities in both houses because it made no sense to legislators that animals who could be saved were being killed. We urge current Assemblymembers to do the same. The status quo these organizations champion is unacceptable.

Mr. Berman and Committee Members, despite California being the wealthiest state in the country (if it were a country in and of itself, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world) and priding itself on being progressive, the 72-hour holding period currently in effect is the lowest of any other state, with one exception. In addition, since the holding period runs on a 24-hour cycle, much of the holding period can be used up when the shelter is closed in the evening and often on weekends. This leaves animals precious little time to get out alive. Not surprisingly, California kills more animals than any other state except Texas. Indeed, a recent report found that “Five states account for half of all cats and dogs killed in U.S. animal shelters: California, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Alabama.” California joins that ignoble list precisely because animals in our shelters have so few protections. AB 2265 is an important step to remedy this. 

It is a win for animals, shelter staff, rescuers, volunteers, adopters, taxpayers, municipalities, and local businesses. We urge a YES vote.

Very truly yours,
Nathan J. Winograd

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

How do you know it is the right time to euthanize your chronically sick elderly cat?

Basic rule: do what it right for your cat not what is right for you (hanging on). It is one of the toughest decisions that you'll have to make. Perhaps the toughest and it can be emotional agony. You'll need the advice of a good, experienced veterinarian (10 years qualified). That is essential I feel. Here are some more pointers.

As a cat owner, making the decision to euthanize a chronically sick elderly cat is incredibly difficult. It’s essential to consider your cat’s well-being and quality of life. Here are some factors to help guide your decision:

1. Quality of Life Assessment:

   • Pain and Discomfort: Evaluate whether your cat is experiencing chronic pain or discomfort. Signs include changes in appetite, mobility, grooming habits, and overall behavior.
   • Joy and Engagement: Consider whether your cat still enjoys activities they used to love. Are they engaged with their environment, or have they withdrawn?
   • Hygiene and Self-Care: Observe if your cat can maintain proper hygiene, groom themselves, and use the litter box effectively.

2. Consult with Your Veterinarian:

   • Regularly consult with your vet about your cat’s health. They can provide insights into your cat’s condition, prognosis, and potential treatment options.
   • Discuss your cat’s quality of life and any pain management strategies.

3. Mobility and Independence:

   • Cats thrive on independence. If your cat’s mobility is severely compromised, affecting their ability to move, jump, or access essential resources, it may be time to consider euthanasia.

4. Appetite and Weight Loss:

   • Significant weight loss or refusal to eat can indicate underlying health issues. Malnutrition and dehydration can impact your cat’s overall well-being.

5. Chronic Illness Progression:

   • If your cat’s chronic illness is progressively worsening despite medical interventions, it’s crucial to assess their overall comfort.

6. Personal Considerations:

   • Reflect on your emotional and financial capacity to care for your cat. Balancing your cat’s needs with your own well-being is essential.

Remember that euthanasia is a selfless act of love, allowing your cat to pass peacefully and without suffering. Consult with your veterinarian, consider your cat’s comfort, and trust your instincts. It’s a heart breaking decision, but prioritizing your cat’s well-being is paramount. 🐾

Regrets cat owners might have on the death of their cat

As a cat owner, grieving the loss of a beloved feline companion can be a deeply emotional experience. Here are some common feelings and considerations that cat owners may encounter when their cat passes away:

1. Relief and Guilt: If your cat had been suffering from illness or pain, you might feel a sense of relief that their suffering has ended. However, this relief can sometimes be followed by guilt or shame for feeling relieved.

2. Loneliness and Isolation: Losing a cat can leave you feeling alone and misunderstood. Others may not fully grasp the depth of your grief, but it’s essential to recognize that your feelings are valid and unique.

3. No Set Time Limit for Grief: Grieving is a personal process, and there’s no fixed timetable for how long it should last. Everyone copes differently, and it’s okay to take the time you need to heal.

4. Helping Your Surviving Cat Grieve:

   • Stick to Routine: Cats thrive on routine, so maintaining familiar schedules can help your surviving cat adjust to the change.
   • Avoid Excessive Attention: While it’s natural to want to comfort your remaining cat, sudden increases in attention can be stressful. Balance your interactions.
   • Introducing a New Pet: Be cautious about introducing another pet too soon. Cats need time to adjust, and their needs should be considered during this period.

5. Understanding Your Cat’s Perspective:

   • Awareness of Another Cat’s Condition: There’s no conclusive evidence that cats are aware when their feline friend is dying. Some cats may show distress or sadness, while others may appear indifferent.
   • Showing the Deceased Cat’s Body: If the cause of death doesn’t pose a risk of infection, you can show your surviving cat the body. However, there’s no guarantee that this aids the grieving process for your cat.

Remember that grieving is a natural part of losing a cherished pet. Be patient with yourself and allow your emotions to unfold as you honour the memory of your beloved cat. 🐾

Sources: Multiple sources from the internet all guided and verified as correct by personal experience including veterinary websites and the Blue Cross.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Why does the no-kill cat shelter policy mean that 10% of the cats are killed?

You may have wondered why the much vaunted no-kill animal shelter and cat shelter policy results in 10% of the cats being killed. Surely "no-kill" means no killing whatsoever? I'm afraid not. 

What it does mean is that there is no killing i.e. euthanasia of healthy cats but exceptions are made for cats with severe medical conditions that cannot be treated causing significant pain and poor quality of life and cats with severe behavioural issues that pose a danger to life to humans or other animals and where rehabilitation efforts are unlikely to succeed.

These cats are euthanised. The term euthanasia would genuinely apply to a chronically ill and terminally ill cat but under any other circumstances it wouldn't really apply. We have to use the word "kill" under circumstances where the cat is euthanised because of behavioural issues.

There is a muddying of the waters in terms of the language used at cat shelters. However, the no-kill movement - which is the brainchild, as I understand it, of Nathan Winograd, American's greatest advocate of saving the lives of shelter animals in America - has reduced unnecessary euthanasia.

The no-kill philosophy focuses on saving all healthy and treatable animals and with that in mind it can dramatically reduce the number of animals euthanised due to the limits of space at shelter facilities and time limits.

The concept is there to focus the minds of managers and workers to use their best possible practices and imagination to find ways to save lives. And there's been a quite dramatic - I think it's fair to say - increase in the number of no-kill shelters in America over the past decade.

The euthanasia rate has dramatically dropped in America over the past decade too. It's still pretty high but much better. There is still work to do.

Some people decry the no-kill movement. I've read quite a lot about PETA but once again there is misleading language used against them in my view. But they seem to believe that killing feral cats is preferable to looking after them and putting them back on the street under TNR programs. 

I think that is a misleading idea about PETA. But ironically Nathan Winograd is in a running battle with PETA about saving cats and killing cats. Nathan Winograd hates PETA as he thinks that this very high-profile animal charity kills too many cats. Either they promote the idea of killing feral cats or they kill themselves and he consistently says this. It's a shame because both of great animal advocates. We don't want people on the same side fighting each other over policy decisions.

I'm told that in 2017 a milestone was reached when for the first time the total number of dogs and cats euthanised in US shelters fell below 1 million. The actual number is estimated at 800,000. I'm also told that it is difficult to obtain accurate data on the number of cats killed 10 years ago compared to the number of cats killed today at shelters. There's been a reduction though so no-kill has worked to a good extent but more work needs to be done.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

National Parks Service wants to get rid of the cats of Puerto Rico's historic seaside capital

NEWS AND COMMENT: I am going to stick my neck out and say that the National Park Service is incorrect in their reasoning in their desire to get rid of the stray cats that roam Puerto Rico's historic seaside capital. I'm told by The New York Post that there are about 200 of them and they have a long history.

A stray ginger tabby cat of the capital of Puerto Rico, a US administered territory.

It is said that they had descended from the colonial-era kittens. They are unique to San Juan according to Darnell Wakefield, a solar contractor who visits the cats every week. They love to see them along their walk. They say that it would be a boring walk without seeing the cats.

The cats occupy a 75-acre historic site surrounding the El Morro fortress home and have become part of the tourist landscape.

However, in going against the grain of popular opinion it seems to me, the National Park Service say that the cats spread diseases to people. They are a nuisance and "inconsistent with the cultural landscape".

They want to get rid of them all and have announced a six-month plan to trap the cats. A spokesperson said that: "visitors will benefit from the removal of a potential disease vector from the park".

A "disease vector"! Comment: they are incorrect. The possibility of a stray cat passing on a disease to a visitor is remote. There are very few zoonosis i.e. zoonotic diseases which can be transferred from cat to person. And, in any case, if you don't touch them there is no possibility.

The park service also states that the cats deposit urine and faeces around the place which is unhygienic et cetera. I would bet my bottom dollar that nobody sees faeces or urine.

It is common knowledge that stray cats at tourist locations enhance the location from the tourists' perspective. You will see stray cats in pretty well all the Mediterranean cities and towns and they remain there as a tourist attraction. Nobody complains about spreading disease.

The National Park Service superintendent said that: "The situation that these animals experience at the park, specifically at the Paseo del Morro, is not ideal for them and is inconsistent with National Park Service policies regarding the feeding of animals and invasive species."

That seems to me to be the voice of a person who doesn't like cats who wants to try and 'clean up the place'. The problem as I see it is that you can't simply just get rid of the cats because they return.

You have to tackle the so-called "feral cat problem" holistically. That means dealing with the source of stray cats which will be ultimately be irresponsible cat ownership. You have to educate people about cat ownership and caregiving. You have to ensure that there is no informal breeding of domestic cats in the area surrounding the targeted area.

My understanding is that they're going to try and trap them and then rehome them but no doubt there will be many who are euthanised. And simply killing stray cats does not work out well because you inevitably receive criticism from animal advocates and also inevitably cats gradually creep back into the cleaned up area and so you have to start again.

They will have to do something slightly different and I would suggest a fully funded TNR program over many years (a permanent program in fact) to gradually decrease the population size humanely. These cats are in a defined area and therefore a well-managed TNR program should be effective over time. It's going to require patience.

It may surprise some people to know that Puerto Rico is an American territory. It is a special sort of territory described as an unincorporated territory of the United States officially known as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

America's animal shelters don't care enough about saving lives (according to a celebrated animal shelter advocate)

The voice of America's displaced pets and the conscience of the animal sheltering industry, Nathan Winograd, claims that "uncaring and corruption are endemic to the [animal shelter] industry [in the US]"

A New York animal control officer was arrested for stealing Hope, a family’s 9-year-old dog. After Hope was found by a neighbor and taken to the local shelter, the officer sold her to people in Ohio. When Hope’s real family came forward, the officer told them that she had died. Hope is now back with her family. While animal control insiders want to pretend that the officer is a rare bad apple, the tragic fact is that uncaring and corruption are endemic to the industry. And though the facts of this case may be somewhat unique, uncaring and corruption aren’t. - Nathan Winograd

Nathan Winograd was motivated to claim that America's animal shelters don't care enough about saving lives and that there is corruption at an unacceptable level within the animal shelter industry, by a story currently on news media which reports that an animal control officer, Casterline, 51, stole a Yorkshire terrier whose name is Hope and then sold the dog to an unsuspecting purchaser.

Hope had been lost in Corning, California, and then found and taken to a local SPCA (Chemung County) from where Casterline picked up the dog and took her home and then eventually sold her to a family in Ohio.

I believe that this is little Hope. So pleased that she/he is back with their true owner. Image: Nathan Winograd's email.

The original owners of the dog became suspicious and telephoned the local police who investigated. Through a telephone number they discovered the family in Ohio who had bought Hope. This family released the dog which must have been difficult to the police.

The true owner of Hope had become very distressed because Casterline had told them that their dog had died.

Hope was then reunited with the original owner while Casterline was arrested for various misdemeanours including theft and he will be tried in the criminal courts. He has resigned his job.

CROSS-POST:  US animal shelter ‘industry’ accused of endemic uncaring attitude and corruption.

The big issue here is perhaps not the story of Hope which ended well, but the statement by Nathan Winograd. He clearly has a very negative viewpoint of America's animal shelters.

And I think it comes from the fact that he is a world expert in no-kill animal shelters and he insists upon high standards and the employment of various methods to ensure that the maximum number of shelter animals are rehomed and their lives saved.

He criticises many animal shelters for failing to use efficient and widespread methods to save lives. He accuses them of being lazy and hiding behind rather feeble excuses such as there are too many dogs and cats coming into the shelter and not enough adopters to take them off their hands. Often this isn't the case. It's just an excuse. An excuse to wriggle out of responsibilities. That would be the argument of Mr Winograd.

Another excuse is that the animal is unadoptable because of their behaviour. But shelters create bad behaviour in animals because they are relatively inhospitable places with strange noises and lots of commotion. A shy animal will become reclusive and difficult. They will be deemed unadoptable. Or the animal might become aggressive when approached because they become defensive thanks to the environment in which they are temporarily incarcerated.

This, too, will allow the shelters to kill the animal being deemed unadoptable. This applies to both dogs and cats. For example, in New York City shelter the authorities deemed it acceptable to kill animals that were 'mentally stressed'. They decided it was better to kill them than to take them out of the shelter and place them with a foster carer where they wouldn't be mentally stressed. It is that kind of thing I'm talking about.

Nathan Winograd should know because he is an expert as stated.

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Cat breeder dumps FeLV positive tortie cats in a field to die

A Cats Protection volunteer was angered by what very much appears to be an informal cat breeder dumping FeLV positive cats in a field to die. FeLV positive cats are those that are suffering from the feline leukaemia virus which can't be cured in which usually is fatal within four years.

Fearful, dark tortie cats with FeLV dumped in a field in the UK to die. Two have been euthanised. Image: Breckland Cats Protection.

It's a killer and a lingering death and what happened is that the Cat Protection charity euthanised two of the cats because the disease was too advanced, they say, and a third is too ill to be blood tested at the moment. 

Feline leukaemia virus is transmitted through saliva, blood and other body fluids. The allegation is that there is an informal cat breeder out there (there are too many) near Didlington, near Mountford, in the UK, who bred what appears to be dark tortoiseshell cat informally and because of bad management the cats contracted this viral disease and then he or she decided to simply throw them away which they did by putting them in sealed crates secured with zip ties and placing those crates in a field in Dinnington.

Fortunately, the farmer found them on October 17th and they were taken into the care of Breckland Cats Protection.

The volunteer, Ms Lardner, who I refer to is urging anyone who has recently bought kittens from this breeder to take their cats to veterinarian for a checkup because it seems very plausible that other cats from this person have also contracted this fatal disease.

Lardner said: "I'm just so angry, I can't get over it. This is the result of breeding and the market being so saturated."

Yes, the last thing that British society needs is a person informally breeding cats to make a few quid and doing it in such a bad way that they cats are unadoptable and have to be put down. And even if the cats were healthy, it's wrong. There are too many cats in shelters needing homes for an irresponsible, unscrupulous person to create more.

Final point: I have referred to "an informal breeder" because there are non-purebred cats i.e. moggies. If there were purebred cats this would have been a formal breeder, normally registered with a cat association and they would then be complying with much higher standards. It is the ad hoc cat breeders trying to make a few quid who really are a problem. It is not illegal to do this but it should be.

The report comes from the Eastern Daily Press.

Location: Didlington, Thetford IP26 5AT, UK

--------

P.S. please forgive any typos. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Grand jury's scathing report of Orange County Animal Care, California rejected by BOS

A board of supervisors (BOS) is a group of elected officials responsible for overseeing county government. In Orange County a grand jury investigation of Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) in California has uncovered inhumane conditions but the BOS have rejected the findings.

They also revealed the killing of shelter animals despite there being empty cages and turning volunteers and adopters away by refusing to end pandemic-era closures. 

The OC Animal Care Shelter located in Tustin, California on June 17, 2023. Image: Hannah Okamoto / VOICE OF OC

That information comes from Nathan Winograd. In addition, I can report from the Voice of Orange County website which states that Orange County officials dispute the grand jury report on increased kill rate at the shelter.

The grand jury came to a majority finding that the county-run animal shelter needed to update policies such as increasing visits for residents.

And they found that the shelter has been euthanising animals at a higher rate than in previous years.

This latest report is part of an uncomfortable line of scathing reports; five over the past 24 years.

The latest report came out early on this summer and it echoes calls in the community to reopen OC Animal Care to the public, to reinstate trap neuter and release (TNR) programs and to reduce kill rates.

Nathan Winograd is critical of the BOS, whose role I mentioned in the opening sentence. I'm told by Nathan Winograd that the BOS passed a resolution disagreeing with almost all of the findings and recommendations. 

Among the many "breathtaking claims in its rebuttal, the BOS stated there is no link between refusing TNR and killing cats-even as OCAC does that very thing".

At the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, OC Animal Care suspended most of their walk-in services and introduced an appointment system in its place. And they also suspended the "catch-and-release" programme for community cats. I suspect that that is a reference to TNR programs for stray and feral cats in the county. Note that they suspended the program and didn't terminate or cancel it.

If it suspended then surely it can be reinstated?

I'm told that the kennel areas at the shelter are still mainly off-limits to the public except for a 2.5-hour period on Wednesdays and Saturdays when certain kennel areas are in fact open to the public.

The grand jury claimed that the adoption appointment system is restricted and it prevents potential adopters from viewing the animals easily. The county disagrees with those claims.

Animal advocate Sharon Logan commented in saying that the "themes" of the grand jury reports are always the same namely "lack of leadership and high euthanasia rates".

Logan is a local animal rescuer who, remarkably, successfully sued the county shelter over the shelter's euthanasia practices in the past.

The shelter is open to the public for five hours a week since the Covid pandemic. An Orange County resident, Margot Boyer, has started a petition to urge the shelter to entirely reopen the kennels to the public. The petition has surpassed 23,000 signatures.

She is pessimistic about the grand jury report because she believes that nothing will happen but at least the report was made which is more than what the BOS are doing.

17 cats mysteriously died on the way to a veterinarian from a San Bernardino County animal pound

Rescue cats. Image supplied.

NEWS AND VIEWS: This is a report from Nathan Winograd to me in an email. It is very disturbing. Nathan Winograd is America's greatest advocate for the No-Kill movement in animal shelters. He tells me that staff at the Devore pound (animal 'shelter') in San Bernardino County, California, USA, say that 17 cats on the way to a veterinary clinic mysteriously died. But there has been no explanation. 

No one believes the claim. Nathan Winograd hints in his email that the cats were killed deliberately because this particular pound has a record of killing animals unnecessarily.

He says that Devore staff routinely and systematically kill animals. And according to rescuers Devore killed 35 cats including young kittens in three days.

RELATED: Nathan Winograd’s No Kill Advocacy Center Reviews US Statistics on American Shelters.

Rescuers have accused the pound of the following:

• Routinely mislabeling friendly cats as “feral” to kill them because it does not have a community cat program;
• Allowing healthy cats to get sick because of poor protocols and filth and then killing them, even if the condition is treatable;
• Killing pregnant cats so as not to foster or provide veterinary care;
• Killing entire families of cats — mothers and young kittens together; and,
• Not providing prompt and necessary medical care “leading to suffering and even death.

And when rescuers complain about these unnecessary killings, the administrators of the pound retaliate by killing animals that the rescuers have offered to save. It seems extraordinary. This report indicates that there is a complete breakdown in the way this pound is managed.

And the pound is managed by Brian Cronin. And Winograd also reports that Cronin has been the subject of complaints dating back decades. For example, in 2006, it is said that he returned an abuse dog doused in gasoline and set on fire to the abuser who was awaiting trial at the time. This caused worldwide condemnation.

Winograd also accuses the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, who oversee the pound, of allowing the long-term neglect, abuse and killing of animals and the pound.

Is cat euthanasia guaranteed always to be totally humane and painless?

 The question in the title, I think, is a fair one. 99.9% of the general public believes that euthanising a pet is painless and the humane thing to do when the animal is chronically ill and suffering persistent pain. Of course, we know that many pets are euthanised at the convenience of their owner or because they are unwanted. That, incidentally, is a symptom of the failure of cat and dog domestication but it is another story.

I am asking the question whether euthanising a cat with sodium pentobarbital is genuinely painless. When this drug is delivered to humans in 84% of cases their lungs fill up with a frothy liquid which causes pain and distress indeed panic because it is like waterboarding torture. How do cats feel when this drug is delivered to them? Image in public domain.

Perhaps the two words "painless" and "killing" simply cannot live together. It seems unnatural that we can kill animals painlessly because being killed would seem to be automatically painful in the natural world. At least in some way or other. Can it be entirely painless? We like to think it is. My research indicates that it isn't.

Even the best veterinarians, much-loved in their community, might occasionally screw up and make a botch of the euthanasia of a loyal customer's cat or dog. And some veterinarians do not follow sound procedures.

There are different ways to euthanize a pet at a veterinary clinic. You can employ the one jab injection of barbiturate anaesthetic, sodium pentobarbital, that's the simple route. But it can go wrong because the hypodermic needle might be misplaced or the vein might burst. The sodium pentobarbital might spill out into the body tissue which I'm told is painful. It may be very painful.

That's the first issue. And in any case, simply injecting a cat in a vein of itself is going to be at least potentially painful and probably actually painful.

We shouldn't forget, by the way, the distress/pain of the pet's owner who should really be present in the consultation room when their beloved companion is being humanely dispatched.

The way to avoid the above-mentioned difficulty in administering the killing drug is to apply an intravenous catheter to the animal and then you administer the drug through that catheter. It is a more controlled and predictable way of proceeding.

The problem here is that it can be difficult to apply the catheter. The animal might struggle. The owner won't like it and be distressed. They take the animal into a back room which I think is going to also distress the owner because they won't know what's happening.

Then they bring the cat or dog forward into the consultation room to administer the killing barbiturate anaesthetic. There could be a third step which is to apply a painkiller and sedation drug which renders the cat or dog unconscious before the final injection is applied.

In short, this could be or should be a three-stage process to guarantee that it is painless. That is: a catheter, a knockout drug which renders them in conscious, and then the third stage is the final barbiturate injection.

That's what the best veterinarians do to humanely euthanise a companion cat. However, as I understand it, most veterinarians don't do it this way. They might use the single injection which is I think problematic. Although they might use a two-stage process and avoid using the catheter which of itself is potentially problematic.

The point I'm making in this post is that it requires considerable care and a good method to ensure that the euthanasia of a companion animal at a veterinary clinic is genuinely painless and therefore humane. Sometimes it isn't on my understanding having researched the matter on the Internet. We don't have numbers to rely on to tell us if this is a big problem or a non-problem. I can't find the statistics. 

There is also the issue of the drug sodium pentobarbital which I have highlighted in the caption to the photo above.

Of course, you should know that I'm not a veterinarian and therefore reliant upon research. But I use the best sources and, in this case, these were veterinary websites.

New York City woman is suing her veterinarian for $3 million for 'murdering' her cat. Discuss.

This is a highly unusual story. It is extremely rare (unique?) to succeed when suing your veterinarian for "murder". What she means, I suspect, is that she is suing her veterinarian for malpractice. For being negligent. Making a mistake. She wants $3 million in compensation. That's an awful lot and she won't get it. And I also believe that she will not win the case and I'll tell you why.

Misia. Photo: Alina. It looks like she was a former TNR stray cat.

Misia was a 15-year-old tuxedo cat that her owner, Alina Kedzierska, rescued. They had a great relationship. But in June 2020 Misia, was found on the floor next to her bed in a "strange position". She couldn't move and Alina rushed her to the local animal hospital which is the Animal Medical Center (AMC) on E. 67th St.

Her cat was seen by a veterinarian who had been at the clinic since 2019. Her name is Lauren Saunders. She is a senior veterinarian there. She diagnosed a feline stroke and said that Misia had to be euthanised. Alina reluctantly agreed.

She must have discussed the matter with another veterinarian afterwards who said that it is possible to treat a feline stroke with medication: anticoagulant therapy. In which case she would have been alive today Alina claims.

The hospital made another mistake (or was it?) when they cremated Misia without Alina's consent as I understand it. She wanted an autopsy done but it didn't happen. They also lost Misia's body for a while and ignored Alina's request for a necropsy (autopsy).

So, there are two weaknesses as I see it with this claim. Firstly, it does seem pretty clear that the veterinarian did make a mistake but that's going to be challenged. The question is, was this the kind of mistake that a reasonable veterinarian could make? Veterinarians are not robots. They make mistakes. Courts have to factor that into their decisions. If a veterinarian makes a reasonable mistake, you can't successfully sue them for compensation.

The question is would a reasonably competent veterinarian have made the same decision under the same circumstances? If the answer is yes then there is no negligence.

There has to be quite a lot of leeway in a negligence claim against medical professional because you can't expect them to be perfect. And Misia was 15 years old. It may be the case that she wouldn't have been greatly benefited by medication and treatment for a stroke.

I'm not deliberately painting a negative picture but a realistic one. Another issue is that a domestic cat is not worth $3 million even when you factor in the emotional loss. I have said in the past that under the circumstances if a claim is successful, the owner should receive a minimum sum in compensation to take into account emotional distress which is fixed under statute i.e. federal or local law. That sum could be $10,000. It would reflect the loss of a family member as important to the owner as a child or relative.

Owners of cats and dogs poisoned to death by commercially prepared foods should receive an automatic $10,000 payment in compensation.

But at the moment courts rarely include compensation for emotional distress. So, she has a mountain to climb to win the case and to win that kind of compensation which, in truth, won't actually happen.

There is perhaps one last point to make. When you are with a veterinarian and they say that in their opinion your cat has to be euthanised because of XYZ, it might be useful to take a deep breath and tell them that you are going to seek a second opinion. 

Agreeing to euthanasia is going to be a final decision which cannot be reversed. I think under the pressure of being with a veterinarian and your cat being seriously ill, you need to take a backward step and give yourself a little bit of time to reflect on what is going on in order to come to the right decision.

I am grateful to the New York Post for the story.

Whimpering dog dragged to euthanasia room at city pound in heartbreaking viral video

This is a classic story of an animal pound killing a dog who did not have behavioral issues but it was claimed that he did. There is a petition on change.org which explains it all (relevant extracts below) and The New York Times covered this. 

Nathan Winograd writes about these events all the time. There are still 'shelters' in the US where they have poor policies and management on dealing with dogs and which ones to save and rehome and which ones to euthanise (kill). 

The Pitbull breeds are branded bad almost automatically based on their appearance when the decent thing to do would be to assess each dog based on their behavior and even if it is not optimal whether it can be remedied by basic socialisation and training.

Screenshots from the video below plus NY Times' headline. Thanks New York Times.

This dog was Maverick. It was reported that he bit his owner but we don't the veracity of that or the backstory. We do know that police Officer Teng stated he had no trouble with MAVERICK, and seemed surprised and taken aback to hear that he had been killed by NYC ACC (New York City Animal Care Centers). Workers at the shelter said Maverick showed “serious aggression,” — leading to its decision to euthanize him.

This is taken from the Change.org website petition to:

Pass New York CAPA and Stop the Killing of Healthy and Treatable Shelter Animals!

“ACCORDING TO THE [NYPD] OFFICER WHO DEALT WITH MAVERICK…

Officer Teng stated he had no trouble with MAVERICK, and seemed surprised and taken aback to hear that he had been killed by NYC ACC. Officer Teng said the son in MAVERICK’s family brought the dog who was wagging his tail out to the police car and MAVERICK hopped right into the back, and rode calmly with Officer Teng without incident to the Precinct, where he remained calm and friendly until ACC later picked-up MAVERICK. Officer Teng stated that only the father of the family had ever had a problem with MAVERICK, who had bitten the father once before. Officer Teng clearly described a dog who was not unmanageable or vicious in any way, and was not, and did not need to be restrained at any time the Officer was with what he also described as a friendly and calm dog.”

WARNING - SOME MIGHT FIND THE VIDEO DISTRESSING.

The video is not great quality because it was poor in the first place and I videoed it from my computer screen. Sorry if that has infringed someone's copyright but needs must in the interests of justice and decency. It is good enough to get the message. It is distressing.

Cindi Lyn who started the petition writes on Change.org:

A horrifying video was recorded on Thursday, May 9th, 2019, at the New York City pound in Manhattan. The video shows a 'euth tech' attempting to block the view of a rescue volunteer who bravely kept recording as uncaring ACC employees dragged a frightened dog named Maverick to the kill room. Maverick seemed to sense his fate and resisted his killers by lying down, showing no sign of aggression.

Cat 'Kolo' who visited a hospital's emergency department to cheer up patients gets a statue in his memory

Kolo, a male tabby cat, lived near Southmead Hospital in Bristol, UK. He clearly liked to visit the hospital particularly the Accident & Emergency department. It is not that unusual for a local domestic cat to visit an organisation like the NHS because there is no doubt in my mind that these individual cats have been left alone all day and they need the stimulation of interaction with people. That's a result of their domestication. And so, they go and find people.

Kolo. Photo: Julie White (believed).

And if they wander into an A&E department of the local hospital and are not rejected by the people there, they will return. And that's how you develop a nice relationship between the hospital staff and in this instance Kolo.

By all accounts he was a very sweet boy. He was loved and he helped to keep the mood up in the hospital by providing comfort to the patients and they appreciated it.

Julie White, who works for North Bristol NHS at Southmead found Kolo to be a wonderful cat and she wants the staff at the hospital and visitors to remember him. 

She is trying to raise sufficient funds to leave a statue in his memory and in memory of all the smiling faces he left behind thanks to his pleasant nature and company.

Lynda Johnson is one those who benefited from Kolo when she was at the hospital. She said on the fundraiser page for the statue (see below):

"Thank you, Kolo, for comforting me when I was alone at Southmead in 2021. You sat and waited for me to have my X-rays, and then again while I waited for my lift home. You will be much missed."

And a spokesperson at the North Bristol NHS Trust said:

"We were very sad to hear the news that Kolo the cat has passed away."

They added:

"We're aware a fundraising campaign has been started, and we will work with the organisers of this campaign to agree an appropriate way to remember Kolo."

So far, the campaign has raised £3,835, more than three times the goal of £1,000.

Kolo was actually injured in a car accident presumably while he was approaching the hospital or leaving it. That was always a possibility I would have thought. It is a great shame that he had to be euthanised because he was too badly injured. Not a great way to die especially for a wonderful cat who was providing a therapy service to people who needed it.

Here is a short video of him. I can't guarantee that it will function for the lifetime of this website. Sorry.

@lokkidokkey #foryourpage #fyp #cat ♬ My House - Welcome To My World

Large feral (?) 'Siamese' cat in Australia trapped and killed causing an outcry from some sections of the community

A large feral cat in Australia has been trapped and killed causing an outcry from some sections of the community. But was the cat feral or an inside/outside domestic cat? It appears so.

Large feral cat in Australia trapped and killed causing an outcry from some sections of the community. Image: Daily Mail Australia.

Comment on the above photograph: I find it very strange. The comments on the right-hand side appear to be have been made by the owner of this 'feral cat'. That means that the cat is not feral but an outdoor/indoor domestic cat. And the person has described the cat as "Siamese". The cat does not look like a Siamese cat judging by the camera traps image. The cat does not have pointing but appears to be an even colour throughout. So, I'm not sure what is going on. And if this is the case the authorities have killed someone's pet! Damages come to mind. The owner should sue them.

-------------------

I have followed the shenanigans and attitudes of the Australian authorities towards feral cats on the continent for years. It doesn't surprise me one jot that the authorities in charge of administrating Moreton Island off the coast of south-east Queensland decided to trap a so-called feral cat weighing 6.8 kg (15 pounds) and euthanise it (kill it). At least they didn't shoot it! That is the normal way for Australia's authorities to deal with feral cats.

Trapping and euthanising is way too humane for Australians when it comes to the 'vermin' and 'pest' that is the feral cat on that continent. They hate the animal but not everyone does because in this instance this feral cat who had earned the name 'Tangalooma puma' had a following and there was an outcry when the feline was trapped and killed.

A resident caught the cat in July having set up a humane trap. He learnt the technique in a workshop run by Brisbane City Council. The cat was then euthanised by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services in accordance with the Biosecurity Act 2014.

In order to verify that this cat was a pest by preying on native species, they conducted an autopsy and discovered the remnants of a crow and a bandicoot in the stomach. This proved to them that the cat was decimating native while species which justified their actions in killing it.

Residents of Moreton Island are allowed to have pets but as it is given over to being a national park, they can't really let their cats go outside. I'm not sure if there is a local ordinance which forbids domestic cats going outside. The reports don't comment on that.

Of course, most of the residents are happy that the cat was killed but, as mentioned, not everyone is in agreement perhaps because it was a pet cat 😎. It makes me smile ironically. No one should agree to domestic cats being killed by the authorities for doing nothing wrong. It is wanton cat killing.

It's peculiar that they dubbed the cat a "puma". It seems that in the imagination of many they exaggerated its size to that of a mountain lion (a very large feline). This is not untypical of humans. And in doing that there was a gradual swell of hatred of the animal resulting in one resident deciding to trap it.

But 15 pounds in weight for a domestic or feral cat is not that big. It is slightly bigger than normal but not huge. And if a cat has become feral for whatever reason, they're going to have to hunt to survive. 

People need to look more carefully at why the cat became feral cat in the first place. The only reason is because of human carelessness. I always think it is very unfair if the existence of an animal due to human carelessness becomes such a nuisance that they have to kill it. The animal is an innocent victim of sloppy human behaviour. This is not a reason to kill the animal.

It is a reason to educate people to stop being sloppy on cat ownership. It's a reason to be kind to the animal because they are victims as well as the animals that they eat.

Animal rights quotes and some thoughts

I think we should make up our own animal rights quotes. Here is one I just made up: "Animal cruelty leads to human cruelty. Hurting animals hurts humankind in the long run" - Michael Broad (webmaster PoC).

Animal advocate. Image: Pixabay.

OK, it's not that good but it makes the point. Here are some "professional" animal rights quotes:

The first one is a very well-known quote. It has been quoted hundreds of thousands of times and rightly so. To emphasise what I have stated below, I don't think that the human race can be described as civilised until we all respect animals. We have a long way to go. That is abundantly clear. 

Animal rights. Image: Pixabay.

The invasion of Ukraine by Putin's forces has resulted in horrifically uncivilised human behaviour towards both people and animals by the Russians. In contrast, the Ukrainian defenders appear to be very gentle and respectful of stray dogs and cats.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi

It is so right because the treatment of living creatures who are vulnerable or at the mercy of people in authority and/or power indicates the quality of the society and the calibre of the people who in power. For animals all people are in power all people have dominion over them. The bible as I recall endorses that view which is wrong. The bible is wrong in many respects. Please read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

So, it is an animal quote that actually applies to all living creatures including people who are vulnerable. These are usually the poorer people, people more likely to be abused and used by the stronger, alpha male types.

Bodega cat insists on equal rights with humans and why not? 
Photo: Facebook @thebodegacats.

A society that cares properly for the most vulnerable - and companion animals are vulnerable in a human dominated world - is one that has become truly civilised. The world is not civilised, not even western nations are civilised. Over 2 million feral cats are needlessly and deliberately killed in the USA every year. They don't pass the Gandhi test I am afraid.

RELATED: Dr Jordan B Peterson on Twitter: “Animals don’t have rights”.

I was reminded, incidentally, that Gandhi was no saint himself. He was human but he knew how to make a good quote! And he knew animal and human rights.

"Life is life's greatest gift. Guard the life of another creature as you would your own because it is your own. On life's scale of values, the smallest is no less precious to the creature who owns it than the largest..." - Lloyd Biggle Jr.

I have not heard this animal rights quote before. Actually, it is not necessarily an animal rights quote, more commonsense.

The thing is this: if we kill and abuse animals, we are hurting nature and nature is the world. We are killing a part of us indirectly. We are hurting ourselves slowly and indirectly. If we do something bad to an animal, we are damaging ourselves psychologically I believe. If we do the opposite and do good, we build our self-esteem. We create a better world inside our heads and outside in our small way.

"True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it." - Milan Kundera, (Czech Novelist)

"Most people have forgotten how to live with living creatures, with living systems and that, in turn, is the reason why man, whenever he comes into contact with nature, threatens to kill the natural system in which and from which he lives." - Konrad Lorenz, (Naturalist)

In general, the world has forgotten how to live with nature. We have forgotten that we don't own the planet but are guardians of it. We live on it and yet we destroy it. Abusing animal rights is a small manifestation of our inability to think sustainably and how to live harmoniously with nature. By nature, I mean all living creatures and the landscape on which we live.

Sometimes I believe that we hate ourselves so much that we are destroying the planet as a way of destroying ourselves.

One area where animal rights are routinely abused wholly legally is in the area of animal testing. This is a controversial area. But if we have any sensitivity to animal rights, animal testing is repugnant. It is distasteful and obviously wrong. Why are we more important than animals? In terms of world health, we are less important than all other animals because we are the greatest threat to the world. As I said we are destroying it. Animals don't destroy the world. They live in harmony with nature and the planet.

"Atrocities are no less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called 'medical research." - George Bernard Shaw, (Irish Playright and Critic)

It would seem that some progress has been made in the area of animal rights....

Eleanor Roosevelt with family dog

"It seems to me of great importance to teach children respect for life. Towards this end, experiments on living animals in classrooms should be stopped. To encourage cruelty in the name of science can only destroy the finer emotions of affection and sympathy, and breed an unfeeling callousness in the young towards suffering in all living creatures." - Eleanor Roosevelt, (former First Lady of the United States of America)

Eleanor Roosevelt lived October 11, 1884 – November 7, 1962. Am I correct is presuming that in the United States, conducting live animal experiments has been banned in the classroom? God, I hope so. It is disgusting.

It is particularly important that children learn to respect other living creatures, to respect nature and other people. Martha Kane working in Malta as a cat rescuer gives talks to school children for this particular purpose.

I hope you enjoyed these animal rights quotes. Please add your own animal rights quote by leaving a comment.

Postscript: I might be an extreme animal advocate but I believe that the human-animal is not superior to any animal. I believe that we are all equal whether we are humans or animals. Obviously, we are not because in the human world very few people think that but I also believe that it would be a better world if people thought like me. There would be much less animal cruelty. Little animal exploitation. A much lower human population and so on. Human population growth is almost a disease on the planet. It is destroying the planet. And if you destroy animals, you also destroy humans and the planet. We need to live in harmony. There needs to be far more respect for animals both wild and domestic. We have a legacy of Christianity in large parts of the world which more or less states that humans have dominion over animals. Not a good concept.

Owner-surrendered cats find animal shelters harder to deal with than stray cats

This might be common knowledge among animal shelter workers but I think it's still worth repeating. A study published in 2007: Behavioral differences between owner surrender and stray domestic cats after entering an animal shelter, found that when a cat owner surrendered their domestic cat companion to a shelter the cat found the whole shelter experience more stressful than stray cats brought to the shelter.

Shelter tabby cat keen to be adopted. Photo: Pixabay.

I can't read the detailed conclusion or the reasons behind this finding because I have to pay for access to the entire study but I think I can reasonably guess the reason why. 

Domestic cats are used to a friendly environment. Stray cats are used to a hostile environment. When a stray cat goes into a shelter there is perhaps not a lot of difference in the sense of hostility that the environment brings to them. But for a domestic cat it's a shock. They go from what should be a calm, pleasant environment to one which is noisy and where there are a lot of people coming and going and cats and dogs in cages making noises.

It is a foregone conclusion that an owner-surrendered cat is likely to feel stressed. The amount of stress they feel will depend upon their personality and their previous lifestyle.

In this study they examined 86 domestic cats (some of whom were stray cats). They measured their behaviour for the first three days after entering an animal shelter. They labelled the owner-surrendered cats as "OS" and the stray cats as "S".

The conclusion was:

"Results indicate that OS cats showed the greatest behavioral measures of stress and arousal compared to S cats."

They also found that the "mean behavioural stress rating" of cats that had been euthanised due to illness or disease was significantly higher in the OS group compared to the S group.

Further, when they examined archival data from 260 shelter cats that had developed an upper respiratory infection, the OS cats became ill much sooner than the S cats. They concluded that this was because they suffered from more stress than the S cats.

OS cats suffer from more stress than S cats when entering a shelter environment which impacts their behaviour, their health and general well-being. It can also lead to euthanasia as opposed to being adopted.

It's is a known fact that shelters can be very stressful places for cats. It makes them prone to behavioural problems and health issues. These include weight loss, self-trauma, over-grooming, aggression, withdrawal, bladder problems and upper respiratory infections.

A strong suggestion is that the best way to reduce stress in residents who are at a shelter in the long term is to remove them to a foster home which gets them out of the shelter environment. They should stay there until they are adopted. This should not just be a de-stressing tool. And foster carers should be trained and allowed to adopt out cats in their care.

The shelter can make arrangements to advertise the cats online and at their facility in the usual way and then refer potential adopters to the foster carer's home to meet the cat and discuss adoption.

An alternative is to divide shelter cats into two groups: one group is better able to deal with the shelter environment and are fast tracked for adoption while the second group may become more stressed and are therefore subject to more attention to alleviate stress and make their stay more acceptable to them. This should happen as soon as they enter the shelter.