On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 03:31:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
<
whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, 14 April 2016 18:09:27 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:42:29 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
>> <
whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> >> The thing is (as I said elsewhere) all animals poop it just becomes an
>> >> issue 'where' in some cases and the potential consequences of that
>> >> when they do.
>> >
>> >I can understand that but it's not easy to deal with.
>>
>> No, true, other than by not choosing say a cat as a pet in the first
>> place.
>
>well they you end up with mice and rats
Really?
>isn;lt that how the plague started when peole got rid of the cats.
I don't know Dave, it was a bit before my time. ;-) Joking aside, I
don't think there is an 'natural' / animal based way of clearing up
any major influx of vermin but if there was, I suggest a 'ratter' dog
(Jack Russell, Border Terrier) be far more efficient as disposing of
quantities of rats than any cat.
>Although hopefully iof we did get rid of cats we;d find better methods of controling mice/rats.
Quite.
>
>What we donlt need to spend money on saving is giant panada they do nothing
>other than look cute I don't even think they taste nice ;-)
;-)
>
>
>
>>Just as you wouldn't say choose a breed of dog that looks like
>> a 'dangerous breed'
>
>well there might be a reason for chosing such a dog as a guard dog.
Well yes, but not if it's regularly going to be with the general
public.
>
>>or one prone to some medical weakness or
>> condition.
>
>So close crufts , as those dogs would have no use at all.
Crufts show / support all sorts of dogs that aren't prone to any
issues, like most of the working, sporting or utility dogs for
example.
>
>Remember at least cats get rid of mice.
I think I'd rather have the mice mate. ;-)
>
>> >Dogs tend to do what their owners want, cats do what they want.
>>
>> Yes, so if I wanted something that wasn't going to be a benefit or
>> asset to me then I too could choose a cat (or budgie or goldfish) for
>> a pet. However, I prefer something that I can take out with me,
>
>Ah well I prefer something I don;t need to take out with me.
You don't have to but with a dog it's more of a normal / accepted
choice. Like, how many people do you see walking their cats on the
street or at the park (compared with dogs especially).
> Not all pubs clibs cinimas, museumes, theartres, stadiums even holiday resort will take a dog.
You are right, but FWIW, I suspect they wouldn't accept cats either,
well, unless you can get 'Seeing cats' for the visually impaired etc.
;-)
>
>I'm going to see a mates band at the O2 next moth I don't think they allow dogs in, I can leave my cat alone at home without any problems.
Yes, like you could if it was a pet rat, rabbit or goldfish.
>
>
>
>> something that get's me outdoors and some fresh air and exercise.
>
>Almsot any hobby can do that.
But we are talking pets, not 'hobbies'. ;-)
>Ypou want to run in the london marathion with a dog can you ?
Not sure, interesting question though (if not a helper dog etc).
>
>
>
>> and
>> at the same time actually want to be with me and have some fun (like
>> retrieving a ball or racing etc).
>
>Cats donlt find that sort of thing fun.
I know ... but for most people a good all rounder 'companion' (rather
than just a possession) would. But you don't need me to remind you
that 'Mans best friend is a dog' and for good reason. ;-)
>
>
>> I'm not saying that a more 'indoor'
>> pet isn't good or even better than a dog for anyone else (and there
>> are many instances where a dog is far from the best solution of
>> course) and as a kid I've kept tropical fish, Guinea pigs and a rabbit
>> but none of them compared with a dog as a 'companion'.
>
>Well that's true but dogs are far more dependent on their owners,
I supposed that depends on what we are taking about here. Most
'proper' dogs could survive in the wild and many do.
>cats are happy to be left alone for most of the day
Yes, like a goldfish ...
> dogs aren't like that.
Yes, most *prefer* the company / contact with humans (or other dogs /
animals at least) but can and do live 'ok' when more isolated.
>With a lot of dogs you have to take them out, unlike cats.
Yes, and that's very much part of having a dog in the first place for
many, the *fact* that they do and want to take them out on nice long
walks in the country. OTOH, many dogs manage just with access to a
back garden and some rarely go outside at all (like these toy /
'handbag' dogs).
>
>
>
>> >> And that's the thing ... when you have to suffer from something that
>> >> isn't your choice, like other peoples animals dumping on your property
>> >> and especially when they demonstrate they CGAF, that's when things can
>> >> go bad.
>> >
>> >I agree but a faur few peole have cats becuse they keep teh mice away, I often wonder what that would be like if there were a cat ban.
>
>
>> I don't think we (in general and certainly not in urban environments)
>> would be overrun with rats or mice and I think you would need far more
>> cats than are realistic to actually control the vermin population
>> effectively, even on a farm.
>
>There's been plenty of cases of cats loking after farms from that POV.
Yes, I'm sure there have been, it's just that a ratter dog would be
more efficient at it than any cat.
>They are cheaper and more efective than a lot of other methods including poisons.
Probably, until the numbers become overwhelming. It stands to reason
something bigger and more powerful (say a terrier) could manage more
rats / day than a cat (check the videos on Youtube of the gory act in
action).
>
>
>> >> So, like with most things that get enough people down, legislation
>> >> steps in on behalf of an innocent minority. All dogs now have to be
>> >> chipped because of the actions of what is probably a tiny minority.
>> >
>> >I have my cat chipped not because of any law but in case it gets lost and theplan was to use a chipped cat flap.
>>
>> And good for you for doing so (whatever the reason) ... you are at
>> least demonstrating some responsibility towards the cat. ;-)
>
>And if I had an iphone I'd have a locator in that too. :-)
;-)
>
>
>
>> >> The same
>> >> *should* apply to cats and hopefully will one day as I believe 'most
>> >> people' consider cat fouling on their own property (when they don't
>> >> own a cat) to be unacceptable.
>> >
>> >I find the polution put out by other peoples cars unacceptable
>>
>> Again, agreed and I'm lucky in that I've never had to commute any
>> distance or regularly by car and still only use the car when
>> necessary.
>
>I dont have a car to pollute oher peoples air, making me superior (morally anyway) ;-P
Well done. However (and I don't want to rain on your parade) I'm
guessing you consume stuff that has been delivered by vehicles ... ?
> What kills more people cats or cars :D
Erm ... including those drivers who die whilst swerving to avoid cats
... It could be close. <weg>
>
>>
>> I think vehicle pollution is one of those things that is 'transparent
>> to most of us
>
>Transparent things can kill.
More so than things we can see in many cases.
>
>>(apart from the smog of old days in London and still in
>> some big cities around the world). I think they should put some (non
>> toxic) chemical that makes bright smoke (al-la Red Arrows) in car
>> fuel for just one day and it might make people realise just how much
>> 'stuff' is produced by them just driving to the shops (when they could
>> probably do so on foot).
>
>or taking the kids to school, not sure where you live but in London it's amazing how quiet the roads can be on school holidays.
Nth London mate and yes, you are right. However ... many of those who
drive their kids to school may carry on and drive themselves to work.
>
>
>So kids are more trouble than cats.
Ermmm ... no, would still say the inconvenience of cleaning cat cr*p
off my shoes and out of my garden has been more trouble to me than
kids over the years (and I have had kids and never had a cat)!
Cheers, T i m