Okay, I have a two dumb questions
L & R
I noticed that alot of them have a "no declaw" policy.
So, I gotta ask. How do they make buyers adhere to that?
Are they talking about all 4 claws or just the back ones?
Thanks in advance for enlightening me.
Newbie in the group
SLK03
In reality they can't enforce it. My guess is that they request the person to
allow them to visit in years to come but you are not required to let them. As
you know my cats are declawed, I dealt with a breeder but no contract so I've
never been faced with this but I did speak to a friend who's a lawyer to find
out what would happen if I would sign a contract like this and breach it. He
said they could take me to court but a demand to reclaim the cat would be
denied as the sentimental value would exist with me....the fact that they
accepted cash for the animal shows no sentimental value on their part, they
themselves have given a stated cash value to the animal. Animals are considered
property under the law, and when looking at breach of contract laws the best a
breeder could do would be to get a secondary sum of money, basically they could
end up with double cash value but that's about it. In most cases the action on
the breeders part would be looked at as spiteful and vindictive as common sense
would tell you that someone against declawing wouldn't be interested in a
declawed cat. If they would reclaim it they would look to resell it and nulify
their own contract as they couldn't present the same contract to the new buyer
and therefore would be considered unfair business practices.
That said I am not advising you to break a contract, there are plenty of
breeders who respect the new owner as the rightful owner of the animal and
don't try to interfere with decisions that are the pet owners to make. In most
cases you will find that if buying pet quality you will be required to
spay/neuter prior to receiving papers. As far as I'm concerned that is fine as
you are paying a lower price that does not give you breeding rights.
Hope that helps answer your question : )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Check out http://members.aol.com/SLK03 .... a site about the love I have for
my cats including a tribute to Logan who died way too young but will be loved
forever.
Gerry
"SLK03" <sl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010922115829...@mb-md.aol.com...
what a load of horse sh!t
> That said I am not advising you to break a contract, there are plenty of
> breeders who respect the new owner as the rightful owner of the animal and
> don't try to interfere with decisions that are the pet owners to make.
Yes, unregistered breeders (also called kitty-mills).
> In most
> cases you will find that if buying pet quality you will be required to
> spay/neuter prior to receiving papers. As far as I'm concerned that is
fine as
> you are paying a lower price that does not give you breeding rights.
>
> Hope that helps answer your question : )
>
To sum up, what a load of horse sh!t.
Gerry
tosh
L & R wrote:
> I was bored and looking thru some cattery websites.
> I noticed that alot of them have a "no declaw" policy.
> So, I gotta ask. How do they make buyers adhere to that?
They can't, but they're sending out a message that they don't approve of declawing, and
that they won't give cats away to people who do, and who they know that do. Since
declawing means actually amputating the last bones in each of the cat's paws, it's quite
debilitating. It can be very harmful. I'm only assuming you don't know what declawing
entails, if you know, forgive me.
> Are they talking about all 4 claws or just the back ones?
Any healthy claws. Both front and back. Welcome to the board, I like your nick
screennamy thing.
Nancy.
(To her, L & R means Logan and Rogue, but she knows that's probably a silly coincidence)
--
"Something's going down tonight,
Something with the man!"
--Wesley, from Angel.
SLK03
information you don't like is to call names. That's ok, just shows your
intolerance and your fear of truth. Call an attorney and pose the question and
you will find that what I have said is 100% true. You may not like it but it
doesn't change how the legal system would deal with a situation such as this.
A breeder putting a "no declaw" clause into a contract would be like a car
salesmen putting a "no passengers" clause in a contract. Just doesn't hold up
once the sale is final and at best the person breaching the contract would pay
a monetary fine so to speak but nothing beyond that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gerry
> Yes Gerry I know, you can't deal with reality and your only way of dealing
with
> information you don't like is to call names.
I called who names? Just pointing out that this ongoing dribble of yours is
a load of horse sh!t.
> That's ok, just shows your
> intolerance and your fear of truth. Call an attorney and pose the question
and
> you will find that what I have said is 100% true.
As if your attorney said:
> In most cases the action on
> the breeders part would be looked at as spiteful
> and vindictive as common sense
> would tell you that someone against declawing wouldn't
> be interested in a declawed cat. If they would reclaim it they
> would look to resell it and nulify
> their own contract as they couldn't present the same
> contract to the new buyer
> and therefore would be considered unfair business practices.
Again, I stand by the description I previously gave - a load of horse sh!t.
There is *no* legal precedent for the above. Since this is your claim,
please offer proof. But you can't because this is simply a load of horse
sh!t.
Gerry
SLK03
>There is *no* legal precedent for the above. Since this is your claim,
>please offer proof. But you can't because this is simply a load of horse
>sh!t.
like I said feel free to call the lawyer of your own choosing and feel free to
pose the question to them. Also you have not stated any facts, simply called
names just like a child would when they don't have an answer.
1....animals are considered property under the law
2....sentimental value is with the buyer as the seller put a price tag on the
animals head and cannot claim sentimental value. One can't claim "priceless"
when they themselves stated a value that they considered fair and relinquished
the property for that sum.
3....the standard in breach of contract cases is to reward the person who drew
up the contract with money and not with a retun of property. The sum awarded is
usually the amount of the item (cat).
4....For the breeder to regain the cat and then sell it they would not be
giving the next buyer the same contract as the cat is already declawed. This
would result in unfair businesses practices (the same contract not being
offered to all buyers) and would not be an option.
We are arguing about something that rarely occurs as unless the buyer was
stupid, the breeder wouldn't have knowledge of the breach of contract and
therefore court cases rarely occur over this matter.
Gerry, if I am correct you are Canadian and therefore your laws and how this
matter is handled may be different than how US courts would deal with it.
Consult an attorney in the US and feel free to look into this on your own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gerry
> 4....For the breeder to regain the cat and then sell it they would not be
> giving the next buyer the same contract as the cat is already declawed.
This
> would result in unfair businesses practices (the same contract not being
> offered to all buyers) and would not be an option.
Don't be silly. A contract is negotiated between a specific buyer and a
seller. There is no US law that specifies that a contract must be identical
for all buyers. For example, companies such as IBM negotiate different
service contracts with various companies for whatever per diem arrangement
is agreed upon. This is even clearer when you consider the product (clawed
cat -> declawed cat) has been altered.
> Gerry, if I am correct you are Canadian and therefore your laws and how
this
> matter is handled may be different than how US courts would deal with it.
Actually they are *very* similar. I should know, since I've lived many
years in the US in places such as Florida and Colorado, and my occupation
there depended on contractual agreements.
> Consult an attorney in the US and feel free to look into this on your own.
I have, and know better. I've executed many contracts both in the US and
Canada that had to be reviewed by the legal department because of the
monetary value being negotiated (millions $USD).
As I said, you're dishing out a load of horse sh!t. But don't worry, we're
used that ;-)
Gerry
SLK03
I said I contacted a lawyer and found out the facts....facts that you don't
want others to know because of your personal bias. To the person who asked a
question, contact an attorney, most will be happy to answer a question over the
phone and most offer free consultations. And as I said, check around, there are
breeders who do respect the pet owner and will not attempt to dictate personal
decisions. Good luck : )
Gerry
> I'm done arguing with someone who can only call names, just too childish.
Where did I resort to this "name calling" you speak of? Funny, I only
remember commenting on the content of your posts and describing such content
as a "load of horse sh!t" which it undoubtedly is. And I find it unusual
that you do not address the points I brought up, but accuse me of name
calling in stead. I suppose this is consistent with the other horse sh!t
you've served up in this thread.
> And as I said, check around, there are
> breeders who do respect the pet owner and will not attempt to dictate
personal
> decisions. Good luck : )
As it is the policy of the registering bodies (TICA, CFA, etc.) that
contracts must be signed for all adoptions, such a breeder will not be
registered - nor can the kittens of said breeder be registered if they are
not registered. A breeder who successfully applies for cattery registration
must agree to the written terms and policies of the organization responsible
for registration, or lose their registration status if caught or reported.
A "breeder" who is not registered, who doesn't give a crap about what
happens to the cat after the sale, who does not force buyers to agree to a
contract, does not run a "cattery" but something called a "kitten-mill".
The running of kitten-mills is usually a frowned upon practice and buyers
are NOT encouraged to buy animals from these types of operations.
HTH
Gerry
SLK03
does not automatically make one anti-declaw, I would urge the original poster
to look around for a breeder who respects owners and consult an attorney if one
cannot be found. Best of luck and hope you find a kitty and a breeder who
respects the freedom of choice when it comes to legal procedures.Keep in mind
once you hand over the money that kitten is yours all decisions and
responsibilities become yours as well. If the breeder still wants to make
decisions for the kitten they should keep it as their own. Good Luck in your
pursuits.
Gerry
> There are many breeders who respect the rights of pet owners, being a
breeder
> does not automatically make one anti-declaw, I would urge the original
poster
> to look around for a breeder who respects owners and consult an attorney
if one
> cannot be found.
And I would urge everyone not to support kitten-mills. However, there was
nothing in the original poster's post that would indicate they would want
to, so I'm not too worried about it ;-)
> Best of luck and hope you find a kitty and a breeder who
> respects the freedom of choice when it comes to legal procedures.
And prey tell what was in the original poster's post that would make you
think they are looking for a kitten-mill so that they can declaw their cat
and not have a contract? I didn't see anything about the poster even
wanting a cat, let alone declawing one. Oh I get it! You're just using
this chance to further your pro-declawing campaign and spew more of that
horse sh!t as you always do. Sorry, you can jump up and down all you like,
but you cannot alter the fact that registered breeders who sell registered
animals must abide by the guidelines and policies set out by the
organizations registering them or they lose their registration status.
Example on declawing policy of the world's largest registering body:
http://www.cfainc.org/health/declawing.html
Breeders who are unregistered cannot sell registered animals. Those
operations producing unregistered animals for profit are called
"kitten-mills". Sorry, but it is a fact and no matter how much horse sh!t
you spew here, those facts cannot be altered.
Gerry
SLK03
negatively. In other words if you weren't planning to declaw you wouldn't even
question this aspect of the contract. But in direct answer to the posters
question....no it can't be enforced and if the breeder tries to the penalty
would at most be monetary.
Phil P.
> >I was bored and looking thru some cattery websites.
> >I noticed that alot of them have a "no declaw" policy.
> >So, I gotta ask. How do they make buyers adhere to that?
> >Are they talking about all 4 claws or just the back ones?
> >Thanks in advance for enlightening me.
>
> In reality they can't enforce it.
If you signed a contact, you're bound to the conditions of the contact -
that's what contracts are for... If the contract stipulates surrender of
the cat if you declawed it (for nonmedical reasons) you are legally bound to
the provision. If you don't agree with the terms of the contract, don't
sign it instead of trying to sleaze and manipulate your way out of it...
which is your usual MO.
To the original poster:
SLK is a proven pathological liar. I would not believe a word she says as
she is well known for conjuring up "first-hand experiences" for any
situation to suit her needs. My advice is to let a lawyer review the
contract rather than believe anything SLK says.
Before you consider declawing, please visit the following site:
http://maxshouse.com/facts_about_declawing.htm
http://maxshouse.com/Declaw_Brochure-2.pdf
http://maxshouse.com/why_cats_have_claws.htm
http://maxshouse.com/Claw%20Trimming.htm
Phil
Phil P.
> I'm done arguing with someone who can only call names, just too childish.
Like
> I said I contacted a lawyer and found out the facts....
....just like you contacted your vet and found out the "facts" that
declawing is "noninvasive" and "only a small piece of bone is removed" and
the cat's distal phalanx is "less than a millimeter"???? IOW, *all*
bullsh!t! I think your "lawyer" got his degree from the same phony,
matchbook, mail order firm in Bangladesh, for $5.00, that your vet got
hers....
Schroedinger's Cat
> I assume one wouldn't ask about a "no declaw" clause unless it affected
them
> negatively. In other words if you weren't planning to declaw you wouldn't
even
> question this aspect of the contract. But in direct answer to the posters
> question....no it can't be enforced and if the breeder tries to the
penalty
> would at most be monetary.
Are we to assume, then, that the reason you contacted a lawyer about
"no-declaw" contracts and the breaching thereof is because you intended to
breach such a contract (or have since done so)? Would Cujo's breeder be
interested to know this? And BTW, just because a breeder doesn't believe in
declawing doesn't mean that they would not want such a cat returned. It's
more likely they would want to get it away from the a***hole barbarian who
perpetrated the act.
Cat
--
Dr Catherine Gunson
schroe...@optusnet.com.au
PO Box 121
Mylor
South Australia 5153
He who laughs last is usually the last to get the joke.
SLK03
>"no-declaw" contracts and the breaching thereof is because you intended to
>breach such a contract (or have since done so)?
The reason I called a lawyer happens to be cause he's a friend of mine and it
came up in conversation. The first I knew about breeder contracts was when I
found these ng's 2 years ago, a full year after I got a kitten from a breeder
and never realized such a thing existed. I happened to think about what I had
read here and asked him about it out of curiosity. I never had a contract so I
have never breached one. In the future if I should want another purebred I will
be looking for a breeder who respects the rights of pet owners....I'm not
looking to rent the cat. I already have the names and numbers of 3 breeders and
most likely will be dealing with one of them in the future, none of which
require contracts.
>Would Cujo's breeder be
>interested to know this?
considering that at the time I got Cujo I didn't know that declawing was an
"issue" and sent her the bill for proof of neuter that also contained the
itemization for 4-paw declaw she already knows of it. We never discussed
declawing at all except in the context when she made sure I understood he would
have to be 100% indoor and I let her know since all my cats were declawed I was
very responsible as to keeping them indoor only. When I look back at
conversations had it does appear that she had no view on declawing at all, the
same way most people don't.
>And BTW, just because a breeder doesn't believe in
>declawing doesn't mean that they would not want such a cat returned.
well yes I realize that there are spiteful vindictive people in this world but
the law would side with the pet owner and only award monetary damages to the
breeder for breach of contract.
>It's
>more likely they would want to get it away from the a***hole barbarian who
>perpetrated the act.
Since declawing is legal under the law the law would side with the pet owner
and even if your opinion of people who declaw is as you state, the law is on my
side not yours.
Gerry
> In the future if I should want another purebred I will
> be looking for a breeder who respects the rights of pet owners....I'm not
> looking to rent the cat. I already have the names and numbers of 3
breeders and
> most likely will be dealing with one of them in the future, none of which
> require contracts.
Kitten-mills you mean. A contract protects both the buyer and seller of the
animal, and according to TICA and CFA guidelines must be drawn. Receipts
must even be provided. Responsible breeders care about where their cats go
and how they are treated once they are placed. You have the names of 3
kitty-mills who are unregistered.
> considering that at the time I got Cujo I didn't know that declawing was
an
> "issue" and sent her the bill for proof of neuter that also contained the
> itemization for 4-paw declaw she already knows of it.
Now why in the world would your breeder require "proof" that Cujo was
neutered if not specified in a contract? Do tell... for what purpose was
this "proof" required?
> We never discussed
> declawing at all except in the context when she made sure I understood he
would
> have to be 100% indoor and I let her know since all my cats were declawed
I was
> very responsible as to keeping them indoor only. When I look back at
> conversations had it does appear that she had no view on declawing at all,
the
> same way most people don't.
Most people do, considering declawing is only performed in North America.
And in North America most people have no idea what declawing is nor what it
entails. However, all registered breeders in North America, the Human
Society, all Cat Clubs, registration organizations (including TICA and CFA),
the SPCA, and every shelter in North America *do* have a view on declawing.
One that you do not share. So please, enough with the "most people" crap.
> >And BTW, just because a breeder doesn't believe in
> >declawing doesn't mean that they would not want such a cat returned.
>
> well yes I realize that there are spiteful vindictive people in this world
but
> the law would side with the pet owner and only award monetary damages to
the
> breeder for breach of contract.
The remedies for breech of contract are those negotiated and agreed between
the two parties and included within the signed contract. Such remedies
*could* include monetary penalties, or they may not. It's what is agreed to
silly.
> Since declawing is legal under the law the law would side with the pet
owner
> and even if your opinion of people who declaw is as you state, the law is
on my
> side not yours.
The law sides with whomever was proven to have breached the contract. This
is called "justice" and the "American way" and all that stuff. Look it up.
Wow, you never stop showing just what a twisted sense of reality you do
have.
Gerry
SLK03
nope. breeders. ones who don't have an opinion regarding declawing or invading
on the rights and the responsibilities of the pet owner....they exist, just
have to be willing to take the time and find them.
>A contract protects both the buyer and seller of the
>animal, and according to TICA and CFA guidelines must be drawn.
There was an oral contract between myself and the breeder stating 1) he must be
100% indoor and 2) he must be neutered. My cats have always been indoor and
neutered so neither was an issue to me. I paid pet quality and it was only
right that I not breed him as I did not pay for that right and anyway he had an
undescended testicle which medically made neutering a neccesity.
>Receipts
>must even be provided.
I have a receipt....I don't hand over that kind of money for anything without
getting a receipt....its called being a smart consumer.
>Responsible breeders care about where their cats go
>and how they are treated once they are placed.
absolutely, I totally agree with you. Someone else inquired about Cujo at the
same time I did, I was chosen because she felt I would be more responsible
about the indoor issue. The other person had indoor/outdoor cats while I let
her know that with my declawed cats I fully understood the responsibility of
protecting and looking after the safety of my cats. You could say that having
declawed cats became an advantage in this situation.
>You have the names of 3
>kitty-mills who are unregistered.
Then please explain the papers she sent me so that I may register my cat, also
explain the family history chart and the certificates of my cats parents that
were shown to me. You are making ridiculous assumptions that have no basis in
reality or truth.
>Now why in the world would your breeder require "proof" that Cujo was
>neutered if not specified in a contract? Do tell... for what purpose was
>this "proof" required?
She withheld his papers until I provided proof of neuter. As I stated there was
an oral contract regarding this and of course the fact that I paid pet quality
and agreed not to breed him.
>The remedies for breech of contract are those negotiated and agreed between
>the two parties and included within the signed contract. Such remedies
>*could* include monetary penalties, or they may not. It's what is agreed to
>silly.
I happen to be interested in legal things, watch alot of court shows, Court TV
etc and get into discussions with my friend who is an attorney. There was one
episode of Judge Judy that I watched and asked my friend about as well. A
person had signed a contract for a loan, in the contract they agreed to pay a
huge portion of interest, both parties signed. The person paid back the money
but refused to pay interest and was taken to court. The contract was thrown out
as void the terms were found to be illegal. My friend states that this is a
correct ruling and happens all the time. So regardless of what is signed, if
the terms go against the law the contract would be nullified in court. So it
really doesn't matter if the breeder makes all kinds of ridiculous demands in
that contract, it still has to abide by the law. The law states that animals
are property, the law sides where there is sentimental value, the breeder
placed a stated value on the animal, the pet owner will tell you priceless. the
pet owner will always prevail in maintaining ownership although their wallet
may end up a little thinner.
>The law sides with whomever was proven to have breached the contract.
One can argue that the cat was purchased not rented and all decisions beyond
point of sale are in the pet owners hands. Proof of neuter in exchange for
certificate is a valid transaction.
>This
>is called "justice" and the "American way" and all that stuff. Look it up.
>Wow, you never stop showing just what a twisted sense of reality you do
>have.
Once again, there is no point arguing what is a matter of law, contact an
attorney and find out what the facts are for yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gerry
> Then please explain the papers she sent me so that I may register my cat,
also
> explain the family history chart and the certificates of my cats parents
that
> were shown to me. You are making ridiculous assumptions that have no basis
in
> reality or truth.
>
> >Now why in the world would your breeder require "proof" that Cujo was
> >neutered if not specified in a contract? Do tell... for what purpose was
> >this "proof" required?
>
> She withheld his papers until I provided proof of neuter. As I stated
there was
> an oral contract regarding this and of course the fact that I paid pet
quality
> and agreed not to breed him.
Ok, I find it interesting that your legal knowledge comes from watching
episodes of Judge Judy. Very Interesting in fact ;-)
Besides that, umm... let me get this right. Your breeder required proof
that he was neutered so that you could get your papers so that you could
register Cujo? How long has Cujo been registered ... just out of curiosity?
What name did you register him in? On the form, it asks for your first
choice and then second choice. Was Cujo the first choice? I'm trying to be
nice here BTW.
Gerry
SLK03
>that he was neutered so that you could get your papers so that you could
>register Cujo? How long has Cujo been registered ... just out of curiosity?
>What name did you register him in? On the form, it asks for your first
>choice and then second choice. Was Cujo the first choice? I'm trying to be
>nice here BTW.
Purebred status means absolutely nothing to me and neither do papers of any
kind. I felt it was more important to spend that money on a toy for him than to
register him. So to answer your question he is not registered as I don't care
about purebred status, registered status, cat shows or any cat organization. He
is being treated the same as the free to good home kitty and the stray, there
is no distinction in my home. btw I also threw out the health guarantee the day
I got him as the second he became my cat he became 100% my responsibility and
would never have returned him as if he was defective merchandise. He's a cat
not a car....no need for certificates or warranties.
Gerry
So if there were no need for certificates, why did you deliver proof that
Cujo was neutered to the breeder? You're totally confusing me now since in
your previous post you said you gave proof of neutering so that you could
get the papers.
Gerry
SLK03
>Cujo was neutered to the breeder?
because I paid pet quality price, there was medical neccesity for it
(undescended testicle) and I made a promise and kept my word. Had I not
provided proof the breeder could have come after me for a larger sum of money
as I didn't pay for breeding rights. I also wanted to let her know he did well
after having the undescended testicle removed and put her mind at ease. It was
more of a friendly gesture on my part than anything else.
tosh
SLK03 wrote:
> There was one
> episode of Judge Judy that I watched
Yeah.... Judge Judy. The epitome of law.
Nancy.
Phil P.
> >Kitten-mills you mean.
>
> nope. breeders. ones who don't have an opinion regarding declawing
Most reputable breeders that I know care very much about what happens to the
cat after adoption and therefore have a very strong opinion against
declawing - an opinion which is supported by strong veterinary medical fact
and shared by *every* veterinary medical association in the world. If a
breeder doesn't have an opinion about declawing, that breeder doesn't care
much about the cats and is probably a kitten mill... which suits your
mentality to a tee.
or invading
> on the rights and the responsibilities of the pet owner....
A contract with a no-declaw clause, is not "invading the rights and
responsibilities of pet owners", psycho. If you don't like the terms of the
contract- don't sign it - and go somewhere else instead of trying to sleaze,
manipulate your way out of and renege on a promise... which further proves
you're a dishonorable, deceitful, liar.
they exist, just
> have to be willing to take the time and find them.
Gee, your "most people" is sure dwindling down awfully fast.... In addition
to *every* veterinary medical association and animal organization *in the
world* opposing routine declawing, you also "have to be willing to take
the time and find" a breeder who doesn't... That means *most* breeders
*also* oppose declawing.... as does the CFA....
>
> >A contract protects both the buyer and seller of the
> >animal, and according to TICA and CFA guidelines must be drawn.
>
> There was an oral contract between myself and the breeder
An oral "contract" with a pathological liar like you is about a good as
submarine
with screen doors....
<BS snipped>
>
> >Receipts
> >must even be provided.
>
> I have a receipt....
You said "papers don't mean anything" to you....
>
> >Responsible breeders care about where their cats go
> >and how they are treated once they are placed.
>
> absolutely, I totally agree with you. Someone else inquired about Cujo at
the
> same time I did, I was chosen because
.....you offered more money.....
You could say that having
> declawed cats became an advantage in this situation.
No. Only a deluded psychopath would say that...
>
> >You have the names of 3
> >kitty-mills who are unregistered.
>
You are making ridiculous assumptions that have no basis in
> reality or truth.
That's a hypocritical statement coming from a *proven* pathological
liar....
>
> >Now why in the world would your breeder require "proof" that Cujo was
> >neutered if not specified in a contract? Do tell... for what purpose was
> >this "proof" required?
>
> She withheld his papers until I provided proof of neuter. As I stated
there was
> an oral contract regarding this
If the "breeder" wanted proof... obviously, she didn't believe you... An
oral
contract depends on honor... and you're fresh out of that... Perhaps you
gave the breeder the same impression you give us.. i.e, liar, manipulator
and generally untrustworthy.
.> >The remedies for breech of contract are those negotiated and agreed
between
> >the two parties and included within the signed contract. Such remedies
> >*could* include monetary penalties, or they may not. It's what is agreed
to
> >silly.
>
> I happen to be interested in legal things, watch alot of court shows,
Figures you apply TV shows to real life... Who did you call for legal
advice, Matlock or Perry Mason.... ?
So regardless of what is signed, if
> the terms go against the law the contract would be nullified in court. So
it
> really doesn't matter if the breeder makes all kinds of ridiculous demands
in
> that contract, it still has to abide by the law.
That's utter nonsense... as is the rest of your thought process. A
no-declaw clause, for non-medical reasons, is *not* against the law....
better call Matlock back.... You're making up stories again....
>
> >The law sides with whomever was proven to have breached the contract.
>
> One can argue that the cat was purchased not rented and all decisions
beyond
> point of sale are in the pet owners hands. Proof of neuter in exchange for
> certificate is a valid transaction.
You're always comparing declawing to neutering..... Now you're
saying a neutering clause is ok but a no-declaw clause isn't... Still wonder
why you're known as liar and manipulator??
>
> >This
> >is called "justice" and the "American way" and all that stuff. Look it
up.
> >Wow, you never stop showing just what a twisted sense of reality you do
> >have.
>
> Once again, there is no point arguing what is a matter of law,
...especially because you have no idea of what you're talking about... as
usual....
contact an
> attorney and find out what the facts are for yourself.
You don't acknowledge facts... unless they suit your purpose....
Cindy
"tosh" <to...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3BAEBD94...@opera.iinet.net.au...
She's great, isn't she? I'd hate to be on the receiving end of her
condemnation. lol
Cindy
Yngver
two years ago on the AOL board and the breeders there explained why she was
mistaken, yet she ignored them.
Virtually all reputable breeders oppose declawing. The purpose of the declawing
clause in contracts is to help screen out potential buyers who might declaw. If
a person objects to the clause, it gives the breeder an opportunity to explain
what declawing is and why she/he (as well as the CFA) considers declawing
inhumane.
The CFA does not allow the showing of declawed cats, btw.
Of course, there are occasionally dishonest people who will sign the contract
and go ahead and declaw anyway. In my experience, most breeders will attempt to
retrieve the cat in those circumstances. That someone would be so dishonest and
would go ahead and have the cat declawed indicates an unfit owner, in the
opinion of many reputable breeders.
In most of the cases I know of, the breeder has been successful in reclaiming
the cat.
SLK03
>topic
>two years ago on the AOL board and the breeders there explained why she was
>mistaken, yet she ignored them.
The breeders attitude on the Aol board was "it has to be the way we say it is,
it just has to waaaaa". Listen to these people, don't believe me, consult an
attorney yourself, most will answer a question over the phone or offer free
consultations, it is not advisable to believe what a stranger says on the net
whether its me who says it or anyone else.
>Virtually all reputable breeders oppose declawing.
This may be true but there are some breeders who don't and its just a matter of
being resourceful and seeking out a breeder that you feel comfortable with
their terms.
>The purpose of the declawing
>clause in contracts is to help screen out potential buyers who might declaw.
It mostly allows some breeders to control everything about the kitten you are
buying. Some will make it appear that you are renting the cat rather than
buying. Beware of anyone who requires visitation or any other aspect that does
not turn over 100% rights and responsibilitys to you. Cats are considered
property under the law....when looking at a contract ask yourself if the terms
are acceptable to you for anything you would buy and realize that you have
every right to walk away and go elsewhere.
>If
>a person objects to the clause, it gives the breeder an opportunity to
>explain
>what declawing is and why she/he (as well as the CFA) considers declawing
>inhumane.
But the final decision obviously remains in the pet owners hands once the
breeder accepts the cash and turns over the property.
>The CFA does not allow the showing of declawed cats, btw.
I personally do not agree with cat shows nor do I have any desire to
participate so therefore this is a non-issue for me, if this is an issue for
you its something to think about.
>Of course, there are occasionally dishonest people who will sign the contract
>and go ahead and declaw anyway. In my experience, most breeders will attempt
>to
>retrieve the cat in those circumstances.
and they will fail each and every time as the courts will only provide them a
monetary reward for breach of contract, usually the equivlent of purchase
price. Sentimental value is with the pet owner not with the breeder and the
courts do recognize that. You can't claim sentimental value when you have put a
price tag on the head of the animal.
>That someone would be so dishonest and
>would go ahead and have the cat declawed indicates an unfit owner, in the
>opinion of many reputable breeders.
My decision to declaw my cats was never made on the day I got my cat.....both
Damien & Cujo were declawed 6 months after they became mine, Logan & Falkor
were declawed 2 years after they became mine. So it is possible to make the
promise not to declaw in good faith at the time of sale and then have a change
of heart in the months or years to come. Keep in mind I never dealt with anyone
where declawing was an issue and even then decisions were made at the
appropraite time for each cat.
>In most of the cases I know of, the breeder has been successful in reclaiming
>the cat.
settled out of court I assume by people who were unfamiliar with the law. May I
ask what they did with the cat after they retrieved it? resold it? If they did
then the second buyer was not forced to adhere to the same terms as the first.
And other than being spiteful and vindictive I'm not sure what they
accomplished by doing so.
One thing I need to say here....I am not advocating anyone getting into a
contract with intent to break it. Personally I would be too fearful that I
would lose my cat to a vindictive person even with the law on my side, I get
too attached to animals too fast and I would avoid that stress at all costs.
But for those stuck in a contract they may regret rather than sitting around
spending your cats life wishing you could get him declawed and being controlled
by the breeder long after the cat became yours, the law is on your side and
maybe taking a risk is better than regret. Anyone who feels the way I do should
seek out a breeder who understands the difference between sell and rent...they
do exist. And if more people would take a stand against contracts that attempt
to control property no longer owned then those types of contracts would become
a thing of the past.
I realize that those of you for these types of contracts are anti-declaw but
how would you feel if you had to sign a contract saying you had to use a
specific vet, or that you couldn't euthanize and you found yourself in a
situation where going against the contract became neccesary? Or what if the
breeder demanded that you use a certain type of cat food or litter that your
cat refused to eat or use? Just take your strong views of declawing out of this
(if you can) for a second and understand the declawing aspect is not the
issue...but the attempt to control and make decisions for a cat the breeder no
longer owns is. The breeder I got Cujo from insisted that he be neutered right
away, my vet decided 8 months was the more appropriate time. the breeder wasn't
happy but I stood my ground and did what was best for my cat. How many people
would have put their cats health at risk to comply with the demands of the
breeder? enough to make it scary that someone has that kind of control and
could overlook what is best for your cat. As I've said before in regards to
these ng's, people can demand you do certain things, choose certain treatments
but they have no personal stake in it if something should go wrong. Sure they
will offer their condolences, the breeder may offer to "replace" your cat but
in the end it is you that will have to deal with the pain, the second guesses
of a decision you were pressured into. Contract or no contract do what you feel
is best for your own cat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil P.
> >As Phil says, don't believe a thing SLK posts. She went through this same
> >topic
> >two years ago on the AOL board and the breeders there explained why she
was
> >mistaken, yet she ignored them.
>
> The breeders attitude on the Aol board was "it has to be the way we say it
is,
> it just has to waaaaa".
Breeders and any other animal organization have not only the right but the
*responsibility* and *obligation* to the animal to try to ensure the animal
they place will receive the best possible treatment. Allowing a cat to be
placed in a situation where she will be subjected a to *10* or *18* painful,
unnecessary, partial digital amputations and deprived of a needed and
pleasurable function for which the cat derives *no* benefit *whatsoever* is
*not* fulfilling the responsibility or obligation to the cat. That's why no
veterinary medical association or animal organization *in the world*
approves of routine declawing for non-medical reasons.
> Listen to these people, don't believe me,
That is the smartest thing you've ever said.
>
> >Virtually all reputable breeders oppose declawing.
>
> This may be true but there are some breeders who don't
Your "most" has now dwindled to "some"... soon you will realize *very few*,
if *any*, reputable breeders allow the cats they sell to be declawed.
>
> >The purpose of the declawing
> >clause in contracts is to help screen out potential buyers who might
declaw.
>
> It mostly allows some breeders to control everything about the kitten you
are
> buying.
And rightly so! People with a conscience who are aware of their moral and
ethical responsibility and obligation to the animals to which their lives
and welfare are entrusted will take every measure possible to make sure
those animal will receive the best possible treatment. *Mayhem*,
*disjointing* and *dismembering* a cat for no benefit to the cat is *not*
the best possible treatment.
Some will make it appear that you are renting the cat rather than
> buying. Beware of anyone who requires visitation or any other aspect that
does
> not turn over 100% rights and responsibilitys to you.
What are you affraid of....? I wish the US would adopt the UK's policy of
home checks.
Cats are considered
> property under the law....
That's just what cats are to you *property*, not living, feeling
indivuduals - to do with as you please.
when looking at a contract ask yourself if the terms
> are acceptable to you for anything you would buy and realize that you have
> every right to walk away and go elsewhere.
Your schizophrenia is showing again... In previous posts, you stated
no-declaw contracts cannot be enforced (which, of course, is not true)
implying that you would agree to and sign the contract and later attempt to
sleaze and manipulate your way out the contract to which you agreed.... Now
you're stating that a person should go elsewhere if they don't agree with
the conditions of the contract..... Apparently, you've learned a contract is
a legally binding document.... in *real life*... Better ask Matlock to
return your money.....
>
> >If
> >a person objects to the clause, it gives the breeder an opportunity to
> >explain
> >what declawing is and why she/he (as well as the CFA) considers declawing
> >inhumane.
>
> But the final decision obviously remains in the pet owners hands once the
> breeder accepts the cash and turns over the property.
Wrong. *Both* parties are *legally* bound to the terms of the contract.
>
> >The CFA does not allow the showing of declawed cats, btw.
>
> I personally do not agree with cat shows nor do I have any desire to
> participate so therefore this is a non-issue for me, if this is an issue
for
> you its something to think about.
>
> >Of course, there are occasionally dishonest people who will sign the
contract
> >and go ahead and declaw anyway. In my experience, most breeders will
attempt
> >to
> >retrieve the cat in those circumstances.
>
> and they will fail each and every time as the courts will only provide
them a
> monetary reward for breach of contract, usually the equivlent of purchase
> price.
What a load of bullsh!t! If the contract stipulates the return of the cat
for breach of contract... and you *signed* and agreed to that condition,
you lose.
Sentimental value is with the pet owner not with the breeder and the
> courts do recognize that.
Courts recognize the *law*, not your interpretation and manipulation of it.
> >That someone would be so dishonest and
> >would go ahead and have the cat declawed indicates an unfit owner, in the
> >opinion of many reputable breeders.
SLK knows nothing of honor, morals and ethics as her *multitude* of lies and
misrepresentations have clearly demonstrated. Signing a contract and later
reneging is consistent with her behavior, here: she'll say anything, lie,
convolute, manipulate, to get her way or prove her point.
>
> >In most of the cases I know of, the breeder has been successful in
reclaiming
> >the cat.
>
> settled out of court I assume by people who were unfamiliar with the law.
Its more likely their lawyers advised them that were legally bound to the
contract they signed and agreed to.... and had little chance of winning....
That's what contracts are for....*especially* for dishonorable, amoral,
unethical, liars and manipulators like you.
May I
> ask what they did with the cat after they retrieved it? resold it?
Probably rehomed the cat to caring and compassionate home....
If they did
> then the second buyer was not forced to adhere to the same terms as the
first.
How did your deluded mind conjure up that illogical and ridiculous
statement? Unless the cat was completely maimed by declawing all four paws,
the no-declaw clause remains in effect.
> And other than being spiteful and vindictive I'm not sure what they
> accomplished by doing so.
First of all, a person who willfully violates a promise and does not honor
their word, is dishonorable and cannot be trusted in other areas of cat
welfare as well. Second, a person who subjects a cat to *10* painful,
partial digital amputations for which the cat derives no benefit cannot be
trusted with the life and welfare of an animal.
>
>
> One thing I need to say here....I am not advocating anyone getting into a
> contract with intent to break it.
No... not much... You're just saying the contract could not be enforced....
>
> I realize that those of you for these types of contracts are anti-declaw
but
> how would you feel if you had to sign a contract saying you had to use a
> specific vet, or that you couldn't euthanize and you found yourself in a
> situation where going against the contract became neccesary?
Your analogy does not apply. If you don't like and agree to the conditions
of the contract... simply don't sign it. You don't *have* to sign any
contract....
<convolution snipped>
http://maxshouse.com/facts_about_declawing.htm
http://maxshouse.com/Declaw_Brochure-2.pdf
http://maxshouse.com/why_cats_have_claws.htm
http://maxshouse.com/Claw%20Trimming.htm
http://maxshouse.com/understanding_scratching.htm
Yngver
>news:20010924122541...@mb-fi.aol.com...
>> >As Phil says, don't believe a thing SLK posts. She went through this same
>> >topic
>> >two years ago on the AOL board and the breeders there explained why she
>was
>> >mistaken, yet she ignored them.
>>
>> The breeders attitude on the Aol board was "it has to be the way we say it
>is,
>> it just has to waaaaa".
>
>Breeders and any other animal organization have not only the right but the
>*responsibility* and *obligation* to the animal to try to ensure the animal
>they place will receive the best possible treatment. Allowing a cat to be
>placed in a situation where she will be subjected a to *10* or *18* painful,
>unnecessary, partial digital amputations and deprived of a needed and
>pleasurable function for which the cat derives *no* benefit *whatsoever* is
>*not* fulfilling the responsibility or obligation to the cat. That's why no
>veterinary medical association or animal organization *in the world*
>approves of routine declawing for non-medical reasons.
What Michelle overlooks is that breeders don't have to sell a cat to her or to
anyone else they have doubts about. So yes, breeders can have any restrictions
they want--in fact, sometimes breeders will just decide they don't want to deal
with a person just because something doesn't feel right.
They certainly have the right to decide not to allow one of their cats to go to
a home in which it will be declawed.
Another thing Michelle no doubt does not know is that reputable breeders are
generally a close-knit group. They exchange information and warn other breeders
not to sell to a suspicious or dishonest person.
>
>
>> Listen to these people, don't believe me,
>
>That is the smartest thing you've ever said.
>
>>
>> >Virtually all reputable breeders oppose declawing.
>>
>> This may be true but there are some breeders who don't
Not reputable ones, as I said. Michelle advocates supporting backyard breeders,
since reputable ones will not deal with her.
>
>Your "most" has now dwindled to "some"... soon you will realize *very few*,
>if *any*, reputable breeders allow the cats they sell to be declawed.
And why do you suppose this is the case, Michelle? Why do you suppose so many
breeders oppose declawing? You don't suppose it's because the cat fancies and
humane organizations consider it inhumane and unnecessary, do you?
>
>
>>
>> >The purpose of the declawing
>> >clause in contracts is to help screen out potential buyers who might
>declaw.
>>
>> It mostly allows some breeders to control everything about the kitten you
>are
>> buying.
>
>And rightly so! People with a conscience who are aware of their moral and
>ethical responsibility and obligation to the animals to which their lives
>and welfare are entrusted will take every measure possible to make sure
>those animal will receive the best possible treatment. *Mayhem*,
>*disjointing* and *dismembering* a cat for no benefit to the cat is *not*
>the best possible treatment.
That's right. Reputable breeders screen potential buyers to make sure their
kittens and cats go to good homes. You can call that "controlling", Michelle,
but I call it responsible.
>
>Some will make it appear that you are renting the cat rather than
>> buying. Beware of anyone who requires visitation or any other aspect that
>does
>> not turn over 100% rights and responsibilitys to you.
By your terms, this would include virtually all reputable breeders. So you are
promoting backyard, irresponsible breeding, I see. I'm not surprised, of
course.
>
>What are you affraid of....? I wish the US would adopt the UK's policy of
>home checks.
I can't imagine any responsible cat owner objecting to home visits. As for
breeders, most reputable ones do take quite an interest in how the cats from
their cattery are doing.
>
>Cats are considered
>> property under the law....
>
>That's just what cats are to you *property*, not living, feeling
>indivuduals - to do with as you please.
>
>
>when looking at a contract ask yourself if the terms
>> are acceptable to you for anything you would buy and realize that you have
>> every right to walk away and go elsewhere.
Yep, and the breeder has every right not to let you buy a kitten from him/her,
too. I don't personally know any breeder who would let you have one of their
cats or kittens, Michelle.
>
>Your schizophrenia is showing again... In previous posts, you stated
>no-declaw contracts cannot be enforced (which, of course, is not true)
>implying that you would agree to and sign the contract and later attempt to
>sleaze and manipulate your way out the contract to which you agreed.... Now
>you're stating that a person should go elsewhere if they don't agree with
>the conditions of the contract..... Apparently, you've learned a contract is
>a legally binding document.... in *real life*... Better ask Matlock to
>return your money.....
>
>
>>
>> >If
>> >a person objects to the clause, it gives the breeder an opportunity to
>> >explain
>> >what declawing is and why she/he (as well as the CFA) considers declawing
>> >inhumane.
>>
>> But the final decision obviously remains in the pet owners hands once the
>> breeder accepts the cash and turns over the property.
>
>Wrong. *Both* parties are *legally* bound to the terms of the contract.
>
>>
>> >The CFA does not allow the showing of declawed cats, btw.
>>
>> I personally do not agree with cat shows nor do I have any desire to
>> participate so therefore this is a non-issue for me, if this is an issue
>for
>> you its something to think about.
Naturally you would feel that way, because you can only think of issues in
terms of how they affect you personally. The point is that the CFA opposes
declawing, but of course it is beyond your scope to consider why it does.
>>
>> >Of course, there are occasionally dishonest people who will sign the
>contract
>> >and go ahead and declaw anyway. In my experience, most breeders will
>attempt
>> >to
>> >retrieve the cat in those circumstances.
>>
>> and they will fail each and every time as the courts will only provide
>them a
>> monetary reward for breach of contract, usually the equivlent of purchase
>> price.
>
>What a load of bullsh!t! If the contract stipulates the return of the cat
>for breach of contract... and you *signed* and agreed to that condition,
>you lose.
And that is exactly what usually happens, as I said.
If Michelle thinks otherwise, let's see her cite an actual case to support her
argument.
>
>Sentimental value is with the pet owner not with the breeder and the
>> courts do recognize that.
>
>Courts recognize the *law*, not your interpretation and manipulation of it.
>
>
>
>> >That someone would be so dishonest and
>> >would go ahead and have the cat declawed indicates an unfit owner, in the
>> >opinion of many reputable breeders.
>
>SLK knows nothing of honor, morals and ethics as her *multitude* of lies and
>misrepresentations have clearly demonstrated. Signing a contract and later
>reneging is consistent with her behavior, here: she'll say anything, lie,
>convolute, manipulate, to get her way or prove her point.
>
>>
>> >In most of the cases I know of, the breeder has been successful in
>reclaiming
>> >the cat.
>>
>> settled out of court I assume by people who were unfamiliar with the law.
>
>Its more likely their lawyers advised them that were legally bound to the
>contract they signed and agreed to.... and had little chance of winning....
>That's what contracts are for....*especially* for dishonorable, amoral,
>unethical, liars and manipulators like you.
>
Michelle's comments show her usual lack of knowledge. Most of the breeders I
know use contracts drawn up with the assistance of a lawyer. I wonder why she
thinks breeders would even bother with contracts if they were unenforceable.
>May I
>> ask what they did with the cat after they retrieved it? resold it?
>
>Probably rehomed the cat to caring and compassionate home....
Yes, that or kept it.
>
>If they did
>> then the second buyer was not forced to adhere to the same terms as the
>first.
>
>How did your deluded mind conjure up that illogical and ridiculous
>statement? Unless the cat was completely maimed by declawing all four paws,
>the no-declaw clause remains in effect.
That one is too stupid for me to touch--thanks for pointing it out, Phil.
>
>
>> And other than being spiteful and vindictive I'm not sure what they
>> accomplished by doing so.
>
>First of all, a person who willfully violates a promise and does not honor
>their word, is dishonorable and cannot be trusted in other areas of cat
>welfare as well. Second, a person who subjects a cat to *10* painful,
>partial digital amputations for which the cat derives no benefit cannot be
>trusted with the life and welfare of an animal.
>
Precisely. Most reputable breeders will attempt to retrieve any of their cats
when they find the cat is not receiving proper care. If a person lies about
his/her intention to declaw, then how is the breeder to trust anything this
person told him/her? The cat is better off with the breeder or another home,
chosen with care.
>>
>> One thing I need to say here....I am not advocating anyone getting into a
>> contract with intent to break it.
>
>No... not much... You're just saying the contract could not be enforced....
>
>>
>> I realize that those of you for these types of contracts are anti-declaw
>but
>> how would you feel if you had to sign a contract saying you had to use a
>> specific vet, or that you couldn't euthanize and you found yourself in a
>> situation where going against the contract became neccesary?
>
>Your analogy does not apply. If you don't like and agree to the conditions
>of the contract... simply don't sign it. You don't *have* to sign any
>contract....
It also does not apply because the requirements that breeders include in their
contracts, such as neuter/spay by a certain age, no declaw, the cat/kitten
cannot be sold or given to a research lab or pet store, right of first refusal,
etc. are included for the benefit of the cat. In addition, these contracts also
include warranties on the part of the breeder--usually that all vaccinations
are up to date, and reasonable health guarantees (and sometimes, that the
kitten has already been neutered or spayed).
Contracts protect the buyer, the breeder, and of most importance, the cat. If
someone is interested in buying a purebred cat, he/she should be very wary of
buying from someone who does not use a contract.
Brandon Hahn
"Yngver" <yng...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010924160525...@mb-mv.aol.com...
> >What are you affraid of....? I wish the US would adopt the UK's policy
of
> >home checks.
>
> I can't imagine any responsible cat owner objecting to home visits. As for
> breeders, most reputable ones do take quite an interest in how the cats
from
> their cattery are doing.
I would never buy a cat from *any* breeder, so this isn't a problem for me.
However, just as I do not want the police to randomly barge in and inspect
my home to make sure I am not breaking any laws, I would not want someone
barging in to make sure that I am taking proper care of my cat.
Yngver
>However, just as I do not want the police to randomly barge in and inspect
>my home to make sure I am not breaking any laws, I would not want someone
>barging in to make sure that I am taking proper care of my cat.
>
misunderstand.
Asking whether it would be convenient to come and visit at a certain time is a
more accurate description, or calling to ask how the kitty is doing, is more
like the norm.
Most people I know are pleased when a breeder takes such interest, and would
not consider it intrusive. I think it is a mark of a responsible breeder if
he/she cares enough to follow up and see how the cat is coming along and
whether the new owner is experiencing any problems.
s.holland2
><snip>
> Beware of anyone who requires visitation or any other aspect that
does
> not turn over 100% rights and responsibilitys to you.
Why ? What do you have to hide ? Wouldn't you want the breeder to see
if a home was suitable for a cat ?
I guess we know what you would want to hide...... the fact that your
cats are declawed...... and Cujo's breeder probably wouldn't have let
you buy him if she/he had seen that.
Didn't you admit in one of the other threads that you don't have any
*papers* for Cujo because he didn't come from a registered breeder and
that same breeder was breeding from a strain that had defects ie
undescended testicles......
Please note I haven't called you names or insulted you in any way and
before you reply I siggest you take a deep breath and count to a
hundred so as not to let your fingers get carried away...............
--
Shirley
see my cat pictures at
http://communities.msn.co.uk/Friendsfamilyandfelines2
SLK03
>to
>anyone else they have doubts about.
no problem at all, I guess the same could be said for someone with an ad in the
paper as well, the right to say no to someone.
>Not reputable ones, as I said. Michelle advocates supporting backyard
>breeders,
>since reputable ones will not deal with her.
LMAO at your ridiculous accusations. I dealt with a reputable breeder, in fact
I only made one phone call to find my kitty, I spoke to no other breeders and
no one turned me away. But as I've said before you are welcome to believe
anything you desire as I realize you have a deep need to hate me and not accept
the truth.
>Why do you suppose so many
>breeders oppose declawing?
I really do not know if this is fact or not so I cannot comment on this.
>That's right. Reputable breeders screen potential buyers to make sure their
>kittens and cats go to good homes.
Yes, the breeder I dealt with was interested in my other cats, what their
temperments are, that he would be indoor and I understood the responsibility
that went with the breed. I expressed concern over bringing a kitten into a
home where there was a terminally cat knowing the kitten would have to deal
with death of a friend sooner rather than later and we spent a great deal of
time talking about this as well as his temperment to make sure it was the right
thing to do. I felt that she was very caring and compassionate and in no way
controlling at all.
>By your terms, this would include virtually all reputable breeders. So you
>are
>promoting backyard, irresponsible breeding, I see. I'm not surprised, of
>course.
I have had a purebred, a stray and 2 from ads in the paper. It doesn't matter
how they find a way into this world just that they found a way into my home and
my heart. Breeders come from all walks of life and they are entitled to their
own views, opinions and beliefs just like everyone else. You are attempting to
stereotype and not everyone fits your mold.
>I can't imagine any responsible cat owner objecting to home visits.
I would, as I feel it is intrusive and someone attempting to still have claim
over a cat that is not theirs. I used to bump into the woman I got Logan from
and I would let her know how she was doing and brought her pictures just as I
sent the breeder pictures of Cujo when he was a year old but I didn't feel
obligated to do those things nor would I allow someone to make it mandatory.
When I bump into any of my former neighbors they always ask about Damien as he
was the apartment cat for a good 6 months before he became mine. I have no
problem with people who out of curiosity or compassion inquire, I do have a
problem with someone trying to force themselves into my cats life. Even my
neighbors who were responsible for Damien's care before he was mine never
intruded upon his new home and let me be the one to offer to let them visit and
I respect them for respecting me as his rightful owner.
>As for
>breeders, most reputable ones do take quite an interest in how the cats from
>their cattery are doing.
I put a stop to phone calls from the breeder and anything I do is on my terms
as he is rightfully my cat. If the breeder wants to be involved in the cats
life to that degree then they should have kept them.
>Yep, and the breeder has every right not to let you buy a kitten from
>him/her,
>too. I don't personally know any breeder who would let you have one of their
>cats or kittens, Michelle.
I really don't care as there are plenty of cats that need homes in this world,
and you have no control over all sources. I don't know if my next kitty will be
a purebred, a stray who shows up at my door, a kitty that grabs my heart in a
pet store or an ad in the paper that catches my eye. But I do know that most
people have respect and tolerance for others and do not feel the need to
control others as you and your kind do.
>The point is that the CFA opposes
>declawing, but of course it is beyond your scope to consider why it does.
Don't need to consider why it does as I do not believe in cat shows or anything
to do with them. They are entitled to their view just as I am to mine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SLK03
>However, just as I do not want the police to randomly barge in and inspect
>my home to make sure I am not breaking any laws, I would not want someone
>barging in to make sure that I am taking proper care of my cat.
I think most people feel this way and although some may cave into this I am
sure that they don't like it or appreciate it. I am sure the stress level for
those who are forced into allowing this is very high always having the
irrational fear of having the person attempt to reclaim their cat even if they
are the worlds best pet owner. It is very selfish of the breeder to intrude in
this manner and I would hope those that feel intruded upon at some point stand
up for their rights as the rightful pet owner.
Damien was the apartment cat for 6 months before he became mine. Everyone in
the building was happy when I moved in and gave him a home but there was fear
for the first few weeks that someone would change their minds or be a nuisance
wanting to visit all the time....I remember the stress and knowing that I would
stand up to them if need be. Luckily everyone was very respectful and none of
my fears were realized. I can't imagine someone feeling that for years, just
way too stressful. If a breeder insists on visitation it is a selfish act and
one that does not respect the rightful owner as the rightful owner.
SLK03
>a
>more accurate description, or calling to ask how the kitty is doing, is more
>like the norm.
no time is convenient. I mean keep in mind this was a business deal so to
speak, the breeder is not a friend, family member, neighbor, co-worker or
aquaintence and it is intrusive of them to try to force a place in your life.
>Most people I know are pleased when a breeder takes such interest, and would
>not consider it intrusive.
If its ok with them then no problem but the rightful pet owner's wishes need to
be considered and if they say no the breeder should show some restraint and
respect.
>I think it is a mark of a responsible breeder if
>he/she cares enough to follow up and see how the cat is coming along and
>whether the new owner is experiencing any problems.
If I would have experienced any problems I would have contacted my vet and not
waited for the breeders call.
SLK03
>if a home was suitable for a cat ?
Nothing to hide just don't want anyone coming into my home uninvited.
>I guess we know what you would want to hide...... the fact that your
>cats are declawed...... and Cujo's breeder probably wouldn't have let
>you buy him if she/he had seen that.
During conversations PRIOR to Cujo becoming mine I stated that I understood the
responsibility of indoor only as my cats were declawed. When I sent in proof of
neuter the bill was itemized and showed that he was 4-paw declawed. I made no
attempt to hide this as this was pre-computer and prior to knowing that to a
small segment of the population declawing was an "issue".
>Didn't you admit in one of the other threads that you don't have any
>*papers* for Cujo because he didn't come from a registered breeder and
>that same breeder was breeding from a strain that had defects ie
>undescended testicles......
Just love your delusions. I was sent the papers to register him but chose not
to do so as I am against pet shows and organizations that exploit and treat
animals like status symbols. He was the only cat in the litter to have this
condition, a condition that shows up in humans as well. In humans surgery is
performed to bring the testicle down into place, in animals removal is the
solution. The breeder offered to pay for this but I refused, the second he
became my cat he became 100% my responsibility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brandon Hahn
"Yngver" <yng...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >I would never buy a cat from *any* breeder, so this isn't a problem for
me.
> >However, just as I do not want the police to randomly barge in and
inspect
> >my home to make sure I am not breaking any laws, I would not want someone
> >barging in to make sure that I am taking proper care of my cat.
> >
> I do not know any breeder that would "randomly barge in." I think you
> misunderstand.
> Asking whether it would be convenient to come and visit at a certain time
is a
> more accurate description, or calling to ask how the kitty is doing, is
more
> like the norm.
Well that would probably be a different story. In any event, since the only
way they someone would have that right, is if it was in a contract that I
had signed, I would have no right to complain, and breaking a contract is
out of the question in almost all situations.
> Most people I know are pleased when a breeder takes such interest, and
would
> not consider it intrusive. I think it is a mark of a responsible breeder
if
> he/she cares enough to follow up and see how the cat is coming along and
> whether the new owner is experiencing any problems.
Calling to check and see if I have any problems is one thing. Checking to
make sure I am not abusing the cat is another. In any event I wouldn't buy
from a breeder, not because they might want me to sign a contract, but
because I feel there are too many unwanted cats that need homes to purchase
one from someone who breeds them. Nothing against those that do, I just
have zero interest in having a cat with papers or showing him. But hey, to
each his own.
Brandon Hahn
> >I would never buy a cat from *any* breeder, so this isn't a problem for
me.
> >However, just as I do not want the police to randomly barge in and
inspect
> >my home to make sure I am not breaking any laws, I would not want someone
> >barging in to make sure that I am taking proper care of my cat.
>
> I think most people feel this way and although some may cave into this I
am
> sure that they don't like it or appreciate it. I am sure the stress level
for
> those who are forced into allowing this is very high always having the
> irrational fear of having the person attempt to reclaim their cat even if
they
> are the worlds best pet owner. It is very selfish of the breeder to
intrude in
> this manner and I would hope those that feel intruded upon at some point
stand
> up for their rights as the rightful pet owner.
>
Thats part of the reason I won't buy a cat from a breeder, albeit a very
small one. Once you sign a contract giving the breeder those rights, you
really have no right to complain however. If you just want a cat, there are
plenty of shelters, not to mention private people/orginizations that would
have one for you, probably with no restrictions or most llikely only a must
neuter restriction. Even if you want a cat with 'papers' I imagine there
are breeders who would be flexable in their contract, if they require one at
all.
SLK03
>In any event I wouldn't buy
>from a breeder, not because they might want me to sign a contract, but
>because I feel there are too many unwanted cats that need homes to purchase
>one from someone who breeds them. Nothing against those that do, I just
>have zero interest in having a cat with papers or showing him. But hey, to
>each his own.
I feel the same as you do and yet I have a purebred. When Logan died Damien had
already been diagnosed for a year and was already beating the life expectancy
odds, I didn't want Falkor to be left alone. I had seen Ragdolls on some show
and read about them and knew that they are very docile. My vet who let me know
that it was not a good idea to get another cat with Damien sick was agreeable
to a Ragdoll because of their temperment. As it has turned out Damien and Cujo
are best buddies, Damien grooms him all the time and it really has given him
something to live for. But as far as certificates or cat shows or any of that
I'm not into it at all. To me I don't care whether a cat is purebred or not and
although Ragdolls are beautiful cats and I totally love Cujo and think the
flopping out trait is cool it doesn't mean that from now on I will only have
Ragdoills as that is not the case. Also I would never get near any purebred
that is bred for genetic abnormalities such as Persians or Manx and even though
I think Scottish Folds are adorable they also fit into that category.
Phil P.
> >Asking whether it would be convenient to come and visit at a certain time
is
> >a
> >more accurate description, or calling to ask how the kitty is doing, is
more
> >like the norm.
>
> no time is convenient. I mean keep in mind this was a business deal so to
> speak, the breeder is not a friend, family member, neighbor, co-worker or
> aquaintence and it is intrusive of them to try to force a place in your
life.
I seriously doubt any sane person would want *any* place in your life....
If home checks are included in the contract and you don't like it.... don't
sign it. Otherwise, honor your word and don't try to sleaze out of an
agreement.... although I realize that's asking the impossible....
>
> >Most people I know are pleased when a breeder takes such interest, and
would
> >not consider it intrusive.
>
> If its ok with them then no problem but the rightful pet owner's wishes
need to
> be considered and if they say no the breeder should show some restraint
and
> respect.
If home checks are part of the contract.... *you're* the one who is required
to respect the contract. Oh, I forgot... you don't respect anything or
anybody... but want people to respect you...
>
> >I think it is a mark of a responsible breeder if
> >he/she cares enough to follow up and see how the cat is coming along and
> >whether the new owner is experiencing any problems.
>
> If I would have experienced any problems I would have contacted my vet and
not
> waited for the breeders call.
Another SLK convolution..... The object of home checks, psycho, are to make
sure the cat is receiving proper care.
Phil P.
Just Bob <uctr...@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:oqvvqtgtsnmmisjn9...@4ax.com...
> On various days, a bunch of people created their own implementation
> of contract law and wrote lots of funny stuff about contract law:
>
> a. You can't *sell* someone property like a cat with future conditions
> attached. You can put whatever you want in the contract about that,
> it's not enforceable. There's no basis for a suit.
I don't know what state you live in, but I hate to disappoint you, Bob, a
no-declaw clause is enforceable in my state and I'm sure in other states as
well. The "sale" is *conditional* on the terms of the contract. If you
obtain "property" by agreeing to terms you know you will not honor, you are
obtaining property under false pretenses and are liable.
If you agree to home checks in the contract, and later decide not to honor
your agreement, you can be required by the court to show cause why you
should not be held to the terms of the contract to which you agreed.
Phil
SLK03
>attached. You can put whatever you want in the contract about that,
>it's not enforceable. There's no basis for a suit.
which is exactly what I said. It would be like selling someone a car on
condition that they never have passengers with them or turn on the radio while
driving.....it just doesn't hold up.
I'll even give the breeder a little more lattitude than you are.....if the day
the person signs the contract they go have the cat declawed one could prove
intentional breach of contract but if this does not occur for a year or two or
three it would be very hard to prove that the person had intent to breach the
contract. The pet owner could have signed the contract in good faith with no
intent to declaw and situations and circumstances change ie: landlord requires
it for continued residence, a new baby and wanting to protect the child or any
other number of reasons unforseen at the time of purchase. Even if the breeder
would file suit those unforseen circumstances would offset the charge of
intentional breach of contract. And like the old saying goes "possesion is nine
tenths of the law". Repossesing the cat is not an option but getting a monetary
award may be in some circumstances.
Phil P.
> >a. You can't *sell* someone property like a cat with future conditions
> >attached. You can put whatever you want in the contract about that,
> >it's not enforceable. There's no basis for a suit.
>
> which is exactly what I said.
....and you *still* have no credibility....
It would be like selling someone a car on
> condition that they never have passengers with them or turn on the radio
while
> driving.....it just doesn't hold up.
>
Your analogies are absurd.
Yngver
>way they someone would have that right, is if it was in a contract that I
>had signed, I would have no right to complain, and breaking a contract is
>out of the question in almost all situations.
Right, if you agree to something, you should not complain later.
However, I think when Phil mentioned home checks, he was talking about
shelters. I believe that if more shelters did home checks, it would be a
beneficial thing.
As for breeders, don't be confused by SLK's nonsense--she just throws things
out that have no basis in reality.
I have never seen a breeder contract that included random, unannounced home
visits. They may exist, but more likely it's one of SLK's fabrications.
>> Most people I know are pleased when a breeder takes such interest, and
>would
>> not consider it intrusive. I think it is a mark of a responsible breeder
>if
>> he/she cares enough to follow up and see how the cat is coming along and
>> whether the new owner is experiencing any problems.
>
>Calling to check and see if I have any problems is one thing. Checking to
>make sure I am not abusing the cat is another.
As a practical matter, usually what happens is that a breeder gets a sense that
something isn't right, and that's when he/she may make overtures to the new
owner to try to ascertain whether the cat is being properly treated. I'm not a
breeder, but if I were in that position, I think I would attempt to arrange a
visit if possible, if I really thought the cat was in an abusive situation.
Believe me, good breeders agonize over this sort of thing--when they find out
one of their cats ended up in a bad home.
In any event I wouldn't buy
>from a breeder, not because they might want me to sign a contract, but
>because I feel there are too many unwanted cats that need homes to purchase
>one from someone who breeds them. Nothing against those that do, I just
>have zero interest in having a cat with papers or showing him. But hey, to
>each his own.
>
I feel that if one is going to buy a purebred cat, the responsible thing to do
is to make sure you buy from a reputable, responsible breeder and don't support
backyard breeders.
Yngver
not sell to her, are extremely concerned about placing cats in good homes and
making sure the cats receive proper care. But to ascribe sinister motives to
good-hearted cat lovers is quite typical of SLK.
In any case, as usual, in regards to breeders and contracts, she doesn't know
what she's talking about. She hasn't had the least bit of experience in that
area.
Phil P.
Brandon Hahn <hahn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:kSRr7.127392$K6.57591645@news2...
>
> "Yngver" <yng...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20010924174337...@mb-md.aol.com...
> > >I would never buy a cat from *any* breeder, so this isn't a problem for
> me.
> > >However, just as I do not want the police to randomly barge in and
> inspect
> > >my home to make sure I am not breaking any laws, I would not want
someone
> > >barging in to make sure that I am taking proper care of my cat.
> > >
> > I do not know any breeder that would "randomly barge in." I think you
> > misunderstand.
> > Asking whether it would be convenient to come and visit at a certain
time
> is a
> > more accurate description, or calling to ask how the kitty is doing, is
> more
> > like the norm.
>
> Well that would probably be a different story.
In any event, since the only
> way they someone would have that right, is if it was in a contract that I
> had signed, I would have no right to complain, and breaking a contract is
> out of the question in almost all situations.
You're obviously an honorable and rational person. Unlike SLK, most people
honor their word and hold their word in high regard.
>
> > Most people I know are pleased when a breeder takes such interest, and
> would
> > not consider it intrusive. I think it is a mark of a responsible breeder
> if
> > he/she cares enough to follow up and see how the cat is coming along and
> > whether the new owner is experiencing any problems.
>
> Calling to check and see if I have any problems is one thing. Checking to
> make sure I am not abusing the cat is another.
Most Americans feel the same way as you because home checks are not a
routine condition of adoption/purchase. When I first heard of the practice
from a Brit friend some years ago, my first reaction - as a pet owner - was
a feeling of invasion of privacy. However, being associated with an animal
rescue organization and directly involved with the placement of cats (and
dogs), I now feel home checks are in the best interest of the animal.
After you've been reading enough posts in some of these newsgroups, such as:
"My cat has been pooping blood for a few weeks; does anyone know what I
could use to get the blood out the carpet?"; or "My cat has been scooting
his butt on the floor and its really gross. How do I make him stop?"; or "My
cat meows very loud when he goes to the litter box and wakes us up", and
after you've seen a few more people like SLK, you may change your mind about
home checks.... My worries don't end when I place a cat... that's when they
begin.
In any event I wouldn't buy
> from a breeder, not because they might want me to sign a contract, but
> because I feel there are too many unwanted cats that need homes to
purchase
> one from someone who breeds them.
See? I was right about you! You *are* an honorable and rational person. If
someone is mindset on a certain breed, contact a breed rescue organization,
first. Ours and every other shelter in the country are pretty much
well-stocked... for the next few years... don't need anyone adding to the
feline population while millions are killed every year because of the lack
of homes.
Nothing against those that do, I just
> have zero interest in having a cat with papers or showing him.
What those papers don't show is the list of congenital defects caused by
selective breeding. Take the Siamese, for example - *18* congenital defects
have been documented in that breed. And the brachycephalic breeds - animals
selectively bred for a flat face, round head, and short, thick neck.
Respiratory muscles must generate more force to produce airflow than in
normal animals and may result in barotrauma to the soft tissues lining the
airways, causing edema, inflammation, and even inward collapse that further
narrows the airways. In extreme cases, respiratory muscles become fatigued
and may result in ventilatory failure. Persian and Himalayan breeds have
the most extreme conformation. Persian breeds are also prone to PCK
(Polycystic Kidney disease. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been recently
identified as a congenital defect in several bloodlines of Ragdolls and
Maine Coon cats.
The papers actually mean nothing unless you are *there* and actually *see*
the kittens being born from the queen and sired by the Tom listed on the
papers. It doesn't take much to register kittens from a line with known
genetic defects to other "parents" with no familial history of genetic
defects. SLK's cryptorchid cat is a perfect example. The condition is
considered hereditary, and although cats can be weakly fertile and produce
litters, its considered unethical to breed cats with any history of
cryptorchidism in either parent's family because the trait will then be
increased within the breed.
As in most cases, a few bad ones cause problems for the good ones.
Phil.
--
"With the qualities of cleanliness, discretion, affection, patience,
dignity, and courage that cats have, how many of us,
I ask you, would be capable of being cats?' --Fernand Mery
Feline Healthcare & More: http://maxshouse.com
tosh
SLK03 wrote:
> >Asking whether it would be convenient to come and visit at a certain time is
> >a
> >more accurate description, or calling to ask how the kitty is doing, is more
> >like the norm.
>
> no time is convenient. I mean keep in mind this was a business deal so to
> speak, the breeder is not a friend, family member, neighbor, co-worker or
> aquaintence and it is intrusive of them to try to force a place in your life.
This is really ironic, coming from a TELEMARKETER!!!
Yngver
>
>> >Asking whether it would be convenient to come and visit at a certain time
>is
>> >a
>> >more accurate description, or calling to ask how the kitty is doing, is
>more
>> >like the norm.
>>
>> no time is convenient. I mean keep in mind this was a business deal so to
>> speak, the breeder is not a friend, family member, neighbor, co-worker or
>> aquaintence and it is intrusive of them to try to force a place in your
>life.
>
>This is really ironic, coming from a TELEMARKETER!!!
>
deal, and often come to consider the breeder a friend if not just a pleasant
acquaintance. A good breeder can be an excellent resource regarding matters of
feline health and behavior. Most people welcome the breeder's interest and
advice.
I cannot imagine very many people who would feel that a breeder's interest is
intrusive unless that person was mistreating the cat.
Karen M.
SLK03
>deal, and often come to consider the breeder a friend if not just a pleasant
>acquaintance.
Just cause the person owns the parents of my cat does not make them an
automatic friend. I have no problem being on pleasant terms with the breeder
but I don't feel I am obligated to be friends with them.
>A good breeder can be an excellent resource regarding matters of
>feline health and behavior.
so can my vet, just cause someone owns a male and female cat and breeds them
does not make them an expert nor does it give them a medical degree.
>Most people welcome the breeder's interest and
>advice.
If I want advice I'll talk to my vet of 15 years or seek out a second opinion.
>I cannot imagine very many people who would feel that a breeder's interest is
>intrusive unless that person was mistreating the cat.
has nothing to do with mistreating or any other sinister idea you may
have....it has everything to do with respect for the rightful owner and
understanding that when you relinquish a cat you relinquish all decisions,
rights and responsibilities as well. They want to see how their cat is
doing....sorry but its no longer their cat and they need to respect that.
I also don't want anyone coming here and singling out one cat as all are equal
in my eyes. If the breeder is only interested in that one cat then they have no
place in my life or my cats lives.
Yngver
> I dealt with a reputable breeder, in fact
>> I only made one phone call to find my kitty, I spoke to no other breeders
I guess that pretty much explains why there is no point in listening to
Michelle when she spouts off nonsense about breeders.
>> I put a stop to phone calls from the breeder and anything I do is on my
>terms
>> as he is rightfully my cat.
Oh, I see, you didn't want to talk to the breeder. Naturally. You knew she
wouldn't approve of what you did to your cats.
SLK03
When I got him she insisted he be neutered immediately, my vet thought it was
best to wait. Getting a call every other day "is he neutered yet huh huh huh?"
got irritating and started feeling like harrassment. It was because of this
that I put my foot down and said "the second he is, you will be the first to
know, until then please don't call". He is my cat and contact will be
established by me, just that simple.
>Naturally. You knew she
>wouldn't approve of what you did to your cats.
LMAO that's why I sent her the vet bill showing that he had been neutered,
4-paw declawed and the undescended testicle removed. I also sent her the
address to my website where it states that my cats are declawed. I have nothing
to hide as most people in this country see declawing as a non-issue. It is only
a handful of control freaks in ng's who have latched onto this "issue" just so
they may have something to argue and whine about about. The same people who
argue about this also demand that people adhere to their view on
indoor/outdoor, wet vs dry food and any other personal choice issue as they
have a need to attempt to control others. They feel powerless in their own
miserable lives and think that hiding behind a monitor makes them powerful. To
each his own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil P.
>
> >Not reputable ones, as I said. Michelle advocates supporting backyard
> >breeders,
> >since reputable ones will not deal with her.
>
> LMAO at your ridiculous accusations. I dealt with a reputable breeder,
The laugh is on you, psycho.... as usual. A reputable breeder does not
breed cats with an hereditary genetic defect in either line. Your cat had
an undecended testicle - cryptorchidism - which is considered hereditary.
Breeding cats with cryptorchidism in *either* line is considered *unethical*
because the trait will be increased within the breed. The possibility of
your breeder not knowing cryptorchidism exists in one or both lines that
produced your cat is *highly* unlikely because pedigrees can usually be
traced back *several* generations. Thus your breeder is unethical... which
suits you to a tee.
in fact
> I only made one phone call to find my kitty,
A probable lie.... as are the rest of your conjured-up, made-to-order
stories. You undoubtedly chose the breeder because her price was the
cheapest... because she *knew* the cat was cryptorchid. Its highly unlikely
she did not know the cat was cryptorchid because cryptorchidism can be
diagnosed as early as 3-4 weeks of age. And she chose you because you
undoubtedly presented yourself as a blabbering fool (as you do, here) and
would not know cryptorchidism is hereditary and think "it just happened"...
Why do you think she was so *insistent* about neutering and bothered you
about it so often...? Or are normally not that inquisitive? Apparently,
she was affraid you'd breed the cat and sell a cryptorchid offspring to an
intelligent and informed person, unlike you, who would trace the defect
back to one of her lines.
> I realize you have a deep need to hate me
As do *most* people who know you and *know* you're a *proven* pathological
liar, and that you *deliberately*, *intentionally* and *willfully*
misrepresent, misinterpret and manipulate facts and the statements of
others, and conjure-up stories and "first hand experiences" to suit your
purpose at any given time.
and not accept
> the truth.
You have not been truthful about declawing - as the facts have proven. You
have *lied* about *every* aspect of declawing. You're also a hypocrite...
<remaining SLK bullsh!t snipped due to nausea>
http://maxshouse.com/facts_about_declawing.htm
http://maxshouse.com/Declaw_Brochure-2.pdf
Yngver
>news:20010924180342...@mb-md.aol.com...
>>
>> >Not reputable ones, as I said. Michelle advocates supporting backyard
>> >breeders,
>> >since reputable ones will not deal with her.
>>
>> LMAO at your ridiculous accusations. I dealt with a reputable breeder,
>
>The laugh is on you, psycho.... as usual. A reputable breeder does not
>breed cats with an hereditary genetic defect in either line. Your cat had
>an undecended testicle - cryptorchidism - which is considered hereditary.
>Breeding cats with cryptorchidism in *either* line is considered *unethical*
>because the trait will be increased within the breed. The possibility of
>your breeder not knowing cryptorchidism exists in one or both lines that
>produced your cat is *highly* unlikely because pedigrees can usually be
>traced back *several* generations. Thus your breeder is unethical... which
>suits you to a tee.
Furthermore, virtually all reputable breeders oppose declawing and would not
sell a cat to someone who intended to declaw.
>
>
> in fact
>> I only made one phone call to find my kitty,
>
>A probable lie.... as are the rest of your conjured-up, made-to-order
>stories. You undoubtedly chose the breeder because her price was the
>cheapest... because she *knew* the cat was cryptorchid. Its highly unlikely
>she did not know the cat was cryptorchid because cryptorchidism can be
>diagnosed as early as 3-4 weeks of age. And she chose you because you
>undoubtedly presented yourself as a blabbering fool (as you do, here) and
>would not know cryptorchidism is hereditary and think "it just happened"...
>Why do you think she was so *insistent* about neutering and bothered you
>about it so often...? Or are normally not that inquisitive? Apparently,
>she was affraid you'd breed the cat and sell a cryptorchid offspring to an
>intelligent and informed person, unlike you, who would trace the defect
>back to one of her lines.
Ah, so that's why Michelle says she "put a stop" to the breeder's phone calls.
Trapped in another lie, I see.
>
>
>> I realize you have a deep need to hate me
>
>As do *most* people who know you and *know* you're a *proven* pathological
>liar, and that you *deliberately*, *intentionally* and *willfully*
>misrepresent, misinterpret and manipulate facts and the statements of
>others, and conjure-up stories and "first hand experiences" to suit your
>purpose at any given time.
I told you before, Michelle, I don't hate you. The reason you receive so much
criticism and scorn on all of the cat ngs and boards you visit is because of
your constant, obvious lying and your blind promotion of a procedure considered
inhumane by all animal welfare groups.
SLK03
in every species including humans. It is a condition correctable by surgery in
humans and by removal in animals. Many times in people and in animals the
testicle will drop into place on its own by the time the person/animal is 6
months to 1 year of age. This was of course the reasoning behind waiting till
he was 8 months old to neuter. There is no evidence of additional health
problems in people or animals who have this condition.....per my vet and my
friends pediatrician who's son had this same condition.
>Ah, so that's why Michelle says she "put a stop" to the breeder's phone
>calls.
>Trapped in another lie, I see.
You make absolutely no sense at all. The breeder wanted him neutered
immediately as he was purchased as pet quality, my vet felt it was best to
wait. I was put into the middle of a tug of war and put a stop to it and did
what I felt was best for my cat and followed my vets advice. FYI I have called
the breeder occasionally, sent pictures and provided her with the address to my
website. She also offered to pay for the removal of the undescended testicle
(the condition was known prior to purchase) but I refused as he is my cat and
100% my responsibility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SLK03
>hereditary condition ?
LMAO I'm just amazed that some around here can escalate a common condition to
a matter of life and death around here. No matter what is discussed (debated,
argued) there are some who always have the sky is falling attitude. Never
ceases to amaze me.
Phil P.
> First of all for all you uninformed know-nothings
I *know* about cryptorchidism..... *You're* the one who bought a cryptorchid
*pedigree* cat .... psycho... But then again, your profound ignorance of
feline anatomy and physiology is well known... You've thoroughly proven your
incoherent blabbering on several occasions.... Examples of your *other*
mindless blabberings: a cat's distal phalanx is "less than a
millimeter"..... "only a small piece of bone is removed" during
declawing.... "declawing is noninvasive".... Since you can't impress people
with intelligence, you try to baffle them with bullsh!t...
undescended testicles occurs
> in every species including humans.
... but, psycho... its a *tracable* hereditary condition in cats.... Why do
you think the cat was so cheap and why the breeder was so *insistent* about
neutering....?
It is a condition correctable by surgery in
> humans and by removal in animals. Many times in people and in animals the
> testicle will drop into place on its own by the time the person/animal is
6
> months to 1 year of age.
Wrong again, psycho. If both testes are not present by 4-6 months of age in
cats, they most likely never will be. There have been documented cases where
testicles do fall into place later than 4 weeks, but almost *never* after 6
months.
This was of course the reasoning behind waiting till
> he was 8 months old to neuter. There is no evidence of additional health
> problems in people or animals who have this condition.....per my vet
Wrong again, psycho.... Retained testicles in cats are more likely to
become cancerous later in life. Neutering is *always* advised as soon as
possible this prevents cancers as well as stops the breeding of defective
cats. Although human males are surgically "corrected", it is considered
unethical to do so in cats, if not even *fraudulent*, and thus, such
procedures are not performed in cats.
"Per my vet"... why am I not surprised..? Is that the same "vet" who taught
you that a cat's distal phalanx is "less than a millimeter" and "declawing
is noninvasive"....? Huh, psycho, or did you conjure up those lies as well
as this one...?
and my
> friends pediatrician who's son had this same condition.
>
> >Ah, so that's why Michelle says she "put a stop" to the breeder's phone
> >calls.
> >Trapped in another lie, I see.
That's not very difficult to do....
>
> You make absolutely no sense at all. The breeder wanted him neutered
> immediately
Of course she did, psycho! The breeder was affraid you'd breed the cat and
sell a cryptorchid offspring to an *intelligent* buyer who would find out
cryptorchidism is hereditary and trace the cryptorchidism back to her
lines... Her reputation would then be as bad as yours....
<irrelevant SLK BS snipped>
Phil P.
> >Yes, but have you confronted your friend's son's breeder about this
> >hereditary condition ?
>
> LMAO I'm just amazed that some around here can escalate a common
condition
Not in pedigrees, psycho. Cryptorchid lines are not bred by ethical and
reputable breeders. You really are a blabbering idiot!
to
> a matter of life and death around here.
Cryptorchidism *is* a matter of life and death, psycho - *especially*
abdominal cryptorchidism -where the testicle(s) are retained in the abdomen.
The probability of cancer later in life is very high in both, abdominal
cryptorchidism and inguinal cryptorchidism but much higher in abdominal
cryptorchidism. If your vet did not explain this to you, then she's even
*more* incompetent than I thought.... and I thought she was *very*
incompetent - if what you say she says is true...
No matter what is discussed (debated,
> argued) there are some who always have the sky is falling attitude.
It seems that way to you because we're just not flippant about our cats'
health and welfare and most us don't consider *10* or *18* partial digital
amputations of bones, ligaments, tendons and nerves or cancer "minor"...
Never
> ceases to amaze me.
Doesn't take much to amaze you....psycho.
SLK03
have nothing intelligent to say so did so for amusement purposes only.....
>I *know* about cryptorchidism.....
well if you had the first clue you would know that its common in all living
creatures and it is a minor condition that can easily be corrected. Your sky is
falling attitude shows that you are ignorant and simply trying to make
mountains out of molehills hoping that because you use medical terminology
instead of laymens terms you could fool people. You can't.
>*You're* the one who bought a cryptorchid
>*pedigree* cat
and your point would be what? I had planned to buy pet quality and planned to
get the cat I got neutered therefore it was not relevant. As they say beauty is
in the eye of the beholder....what is a beautiful cat to me is defective
merchandise to you. To each his own.
<mindless babbling snipped>
> If both testes are not present by 4-6 months of age in
>cats, they most likely never will be.
and once again assuming things you don't have the first clue about. One
testicle was in the correct location, one had not dropped, through x-rays and
ultrasound at 3 months old it was thought that the position of the undescended
testicle was good for it to drop. Those tests were done again at 6 months to
see if there was any progress and at 8 months it was decided to go ahead with
the removal.
>Wrong again, psycho.... Retained testicles in cats are more likely to
>become cancerous later in life. Neutering is *always* advised as soon as
>possible this prevents cancers as well as stops the breeding of defective
>cats.
1....no intention to breed him, indoor only with no contact with females in
heat
2....ragdolls have extra layers of fat in their abdomens which means longer
healing times, therefore it was decided to wait rather than rush into this
surgery.
>Although human males are surgically "corrected", it is considered
>unethical to do so in cats, if not even *fraudulent*, and thus, such
>procedures are not performed in cats.
DUH! that's why I said in humans it is surgically corrected, in animals
removed. Glad you agreed with me.
> The breeder was affraid you'd breed the cat and
>sell a cryptorchid offspring
The breeder didn't want anyone who didn't pay for breeding rights to breed a
cat. period.
<rest of nonsensical mindless utterances snipped>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil P.
> Normally I don't read or respond to the know-nothings posts
There's nothing normal about you, psycho.
but I knew he would
> have nothing intelligent to say
...it only seems that way to you because you're not intelligent enough to
understand me.... Intellectually, I'm as far above you as you are above the
ameba...
> so did so for amusement purposes only.....
Thanks! I'm always amused by your ignorant bullsh!t.
>
> >I *know* about cryptorchidism.....
>
> well if you had the first clue
Obviously, I do...
you would know that its common in all living
> creatures
Not in pedigree cats, you ignorant psychopath! The incidence of
cryptorchidism is only 1.7% in the *general* feline population.... that
translates into less than ~*0.17%* in pedigree cats... that's not exactly a
rational person's idea of "common".... Do you think up all your ridiculous
nonsense yourself or do you have a team of monkeys helping you?
> and it is a minor condition that can easily be corrected.
This isn't about humans, you manipulating psycho. Its about cats - and
surgically correcting cryptorchidism considered unethical, if not even
*fraudulent* in cats. Cryptorchidism isn't a "minor condition" -
*especially* if its *abdominal* cryptorchidism.
Your sky is
> falling attitude shows that you are ignorant
Lets face it, psycho. You've learned *far* more from me about cats than you
have from your mail-order vet.....
and simply trying to make
> mountains out of molehills hoping that because you use medical terminology
> instead of laymens terms you could fool people. You can't.
Cryptorchidism only seems like a technical term to you because you're
ignorant. You didn't think hyperthyroidism was a technical medical term
when you used it.... Hey, you should thank me for teaching you yet *another*
thing about cats! Pretty soon you'll be able to tell the difference between
a hairball and a turd without tasting them anymore!
>
> >*You're* the one who bought a cryptorchid
> >*pedigree* cat
>
> and your point would be what? I had planned to buy pet quality and
planned to
> get the cat I got neutered therefore it was not relevant.
The point is, psycho, you claimed the breeder was "reputable".... reputable
breeders don't breed cats with cryptorchidism in either line. And if she
didn't know she had a cryptorchid line she's even more of an unethical and
incompetent breeder than you describe her as being...
As they say beauty is
> in the eye of the beholder....what is a beautiful cat to me is defective
> merchandise to you. To each his own.
The only defective merchandise here, is you, psycho. Cats with genetic
defects in either line should not be bred because it perpetuates the defect
within the breed and subjects the offspring to additional surgery.
>
> <mindless babbling snipped>
>
> > If both testes are not present by 4-6 months of age in
> >cats, they most likely never will be.
>
> and once again assuming things you don't have the first clue about. One
> testicle was in the correct location, one had not dropped, through x-rays
and
> ultrasound at 3 months old it was thought that the position of the
undescended
> testicle was good for it to drop. Those tests were done again at 6 months
to
> see if there was any progress and at 8 months it was decided to go ahead
with
> the removal.
Let me refresh your psychotic memory: You said "Many times in people and in
animals the testicle will drop into place on its own by the time the
person/animal is 6 months to 1 year of age." Which, of course, is not true
for cats....
And I said: "If both testes are not present by 4-6 months of age in cats,
they most likely never will be. There have been documented cases where
testicles do fall into place later than 4 weeks, but almost *never* after 6
months." You're too psychotic to realize you *confirmed* what I said...
You *did* say said the testicle did not drop by 8 months....
>
> >Wrong again, psycho.... Retained testicles in cats are more likely to
> >become cancerous later in life. Neutering is *always* advised as soon as
> >possible this prevents cancers as well as stops the breeding of defective
> >cats.
>
> 1....no intention to breed him, indoor only with no contact with females
in
> heat
Irrelevant. Also, you, nor anyone else, can guarantee, with absolute
certainty, the cat will *never* get out.
> 2....ragdolls have extra layers of fat in their abdomens which means
longer
> healing times, therefore it was decided to wait rather than rush into this
> surgery.
Your ignorance is truly astonishing! The amount of abdominal fat present in
young animals (~10-12 weeks) is *much* less than in older animals (>12
weeks). Also, visualization is *much* better in younger animals than in
older animals - this, coupled with the smaller vessel sizes, allows for
*precise* hemostasis and *shortens* operative time. Anesthetic time as well
recovery are also *less* in younger animals.
>
> >Although human males are surgically "corrected", it is considered
> >unethical to do so in cats, if not even *fraudulent*, and thus, such
> >procedures are not performed in cats.
>
>
> > The breeder was affraid you'd breed the cat and
> >sell a cryptorchid offspring
.....to an *intelligent* buyer, unlike you, who would find out
cryptorchidism is hereditary and trace the cryptorchidism back to her
lines... Her reputation would then be as bad as yours....
>
> The breeder didn't want anyone who didn't pay for breeding rights to breed
a
> cat. period.
If that was the breeder's *only* concern, she would not have been so
insistent and "bothered" you so frequently about getting the cat
neutered.... She simply would not have given you the papers until you
provided proof of neutering.... Nope, psycho! As usual, your manipulation
doesn't work....
> <rest of nonsensical mindless utterances snipped>
Just think, psycho, if you were 1/1000 as "mindless" as me, you'd be 1000
times smarter than you are.... *One* of the differences between you and I is
that my knowledge has a limit and ignorance doesn't.....
Care to make an even bigger fool of yourself...(if that's even possible)?
SLK03
>cryptorchidism is only 1.7% in the *general* feline population.... that
>translates into less than ~*0.17%* in pedigree cats...
You are using warped logic here. You are figuring this by saying 10% of the cat
population is purebred so therefore they have 90% less chance. They have the
same chance as the general population but just more evidence of your lies and
exaggerations thinking that people will never call your bluff. Its kinda like
saying that 70% of the population will get a cold this winter, children make up
say 10% of the population so their chance of getting a cold is only 0.7%.
Laughable at best. If anyone still thought you had any credibility they should
be able to see from this how you will twist things to suit your own purpose
even if they don't add up.
<rest of know-nothing nonsensical babblings laughed at but snipped>
Phil P.
> >he incidence of
> >cryptorchidism is only 1.7% in the *general* feline population.... that
> >translates into less than ~*0.17%* in pedigree cats...
>
> You are using warped logic here.
That's fuuuuuny coming from a warped mind!
You are figuring this by saying 10% of the cat
> population is purebred so therefore they have 90% less chance.
No, psycho. I'm saying the incidence of cryptorchidism is 1.7% in the
general feline population - about 2 cats in a 100, and less than 2 cats in
every 100 pedigrees... is that simple enough for your simple mind to
understand?
They have the
> same chance as the general population
No, they don't, psycho. Cryptorchidism is less prevalent in the pedigree
segment because pedigree cryptorchid cats are not bred... at least, by
ethical breeders - that leaves yours out.
but just more evidence of your lies and
> exaggerations
Bwaaaaahahahaaaaa! That's **really** funny comming from you, a pathological
liar who has been caught in one lie after another! Nope, psycho, my
statements, unlike yours, are based on facts.
> thinking that people will never call your bluff.
You see, psycho, I don't have to bluff and lie like you because unlike you I
know what I'm talking about because I handle 1000s of cats a year, and 2.
unlike you, my statements are based on facts.
Its kinda like
> saying that 70% of the population will get a cold this winter, children
make up
> say 10% of the population so their chance of getting a cold is only 0.7%.
> Laughable at best.
Your analogy sure is laughable at best.... actually, its sad.... What I
*actually* said is cryptorchidism is less prevalent in the pedigree segment
of the feline population than in the general feline population because
pedigree cryptorchid cats are not bred.... Wanna try to manipulate my
statement again... it didn't work the first time...
If anyone still thought you had any credibility they should
> be able to see from this how you will twist things to suit your own
purpose
> even if they don't add up.
Believe me, psycho, my credibility is no danger from a pathological lying
psychopathic manipulator like you....
SLK03
>general feline population - about 2 cats in a 100, and less than 2 cats in
>every 100 pedigrees...
and I happen to have that one cat which is fine with me. As I said before in my
eyes he is a beautiful cat, in your eyes he is defective merchandise that
shouldn't have been born. Lets see what others think, check out Cujo's page on
my website and decide for yourselves...would you deny this cat a home and life
because he was born with an undescended testicle (that was removed at time of
neuter)? Phil, maybe one day you will learn what compassion and love are
about. I wish you the best. I'm done discussing this with you. Peace.
Phil P.
> >No, psycho. I'm saying the incidence of cryptorchidism is 1.7% in the
> >general feline population - about 2 cats in a 100, and less than 2 cats
in
> >every 100 pedigrees...
>
> and I happen to have that one cat which is fine with me. As I said before
in my
> eyes he is a beautiful cat, in your eyes he is defective merchandise that
> shouldn't have been born.
Still manipulating and deliberately misintrepreting the statements of
others... You're a true psychopath. *You* said he was "defective
merchandise", not me. I said cryptorchid cats should not be bred nor should
any lines with genetic defects be bred. No ethical breeder, or anyone else
for that matter, would breed cats with genetic defects in either line.
Lets see what others think, check out Cujo's page on
> my website and decide for yourselves...would you deny this cat a home and
life because he was born with an undescended testicle (that was removed at
time of neuter)?
You're manipulating and convoluting my statement... as you usually do.... I
never said *any* cat should be denied a home or a life... saving cats' lives
and finding them homes is my thing, psycho. I said cats with genetic defects
should not be bred... The two statements do not have the same meaning....
manipulator.
Phil, maybe one day you will learn what compassion and love are
> about.
I surely don't want to learn your brand of "compassion" and "love".... My
brand of love does not include subjecting feeling, trusting creatures to
*unnecessary* pain and suffering with no benefit for them....
> I'm done discussing this with you.
I surely hope so.
Yngver
>> > The breeder was affraid you'd breed the cat and
>> >sell a cryptorchid offspring
>
>.....to an *intelligent* buyer, unlike you, who would find out
>cryptorchidism is hereditary and trace the cryptorchidism back to her
>lines... Her reputation would then be as bad as yours....
>
>>
>> The breeder didn't want anyone who didn't pay for breeding rights to breed
>a
>> cat. period.
>
>If that was the breeder's *only* concern, she would not have been so
>insistent and "bothered" you so frequently about getting the cat
>neutered.... She simply would not have given you the papers until you
>provided proof of neutering.... Nope, psycho! As usual, your manipulation
>doesn't work....
>
from the start, and was worried she wouldn't neuter the cat per the agreement.
Phil is right of course--normally breeders just withhold the papers until they
get proof of neutering. I can see no reason for this breeder to be so worried
about Michelle breeding this cat unless she suspected Michelle would do it
despite their agreement.
> > <rest of nonsensical mindless utterances snipped>
>
>Just think, psycho, if you were 1/1000 as "mindless" as me, you'd be 1000
>times smarter than you are.... *One* of the differences between you and I is
>that my knowledge has a limit and ignorance doesn't.....
>
>Care to make an even bigger fool of yourself...(if that's even possible)?
>
I hope she does--this is a laugh riot for all reading this exchange.
Hey, Michelle--thanks once again for making us all laugh!
SLK03
vet changed that and the breeder was overruled.
2...one of the reasons the breeder wanted him neutered quickly was so she could
send the papers out - I put her in contact with my vet, asked her to refrain
from calling "when, when when?" and after a few months got a call from her
letting me know she was sending the papers out and to please send her the
receipt at the time of neuter. In other words she trusted me to do what was
right with no incentive so to speak.
3...the breeder offered to pay for the removal of the undescended testicle at
the time of purchase, I declined feeling that he is my cat and 100% my
responsibility.
4...When I inquired about getting him, he was already born, I did not place an
order prior or give the breeder any incentive to breed.
5...he was the last kitty left in the litter, the mismarked runt with an
undescended testicle....definitely not the cat for those who get purebreds for
show or for status. But in my eyes he is perfect and beautiful.
6...when I called, someone else had been inquiring about him, there was some
instinct, fate maybe, that said "this is my cat", I sent in a deposit sight
unseen, just the description of him was enough and gut instinct. I was told
that even with the deposit she would make the final decision and it wasn't
neccesarily first come first serve.....the fact that I understood the
importance of indoor only through having declawed cats is what did it, the
other person had indoor/outdoor cats and didn't seem to take it as seriously as
they should have.
7...by critisizing the fact that I chose to get a cat with a "problem" you are
saying that he didn't deserve a home or life. Either you are snobbish or lack
compassion, not sure which but either way I'm not quite sure what your problem
is.
And after all of this all I can say is it gives me even more reason to be
greatful that he is my cat. I'm not sure if you folks are simply critisizing
cause its me and you feel the need to condemn everything I do or if you really
believe what you are saying. I hope its the former not the latter. Peace.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shena Delian O'Brien
>
> can see the contract online at
> http://community.webtv.net/zuzu22/Adoptionagreement
I don't agree with:
"I agree to trim the cat's nails regularly."
I've never had to trim any of my cat's nails. They all seem to be doing
fine on their own. I think that's an unnecessary clause.
This is also a bit ridiculous:
6) I understand that exposure to cigarette smoke has been shown to cause
asthma in cats and I agree that the cat I am adopting will reside in a
smoke-free environment.
They don't even require that for adopting out *humans*. It would
effectively mean I could never have a cat, because my husband smokes.
The premium food bit is also a bit off....
You must sell very expensive, pedigreed cats.
I personally have never had to buy a cat. They always seem to find *me*,
not the other way 'round!
--
Shena Delian O'Brien * http://www.darklock.com/shena/
The Graphics Kitty! * http://www.darklock.com/abstract/
Fantasy Age * http://www.fantasyage.com/
Phil P.
> 1....the agreement was
> 2...one of the reasons the breeder wanted him neutered quickly was so she
could
> send the papers out -
Of course, this story is obviously *another* lie that you just conjured up
because you couldn't sleaze out of the fact that you bought your cat -
cheap - from an unethical, backyard breeder who breeds cats with genetic
defects in their line.. The breeder wanted him neutered quickly before you
had a chance to breed him so the genetic defect wouldn't be traced back to
her lines which would devalue her stock and damage her reputation...
> I'm not sure if you folks are simply critisizing cause its me and you feel
the need to condemn
> everything I do or if you really believe what you are saying.
Let me remove your doubts - you're right on all counts! You've been
criticized and condemned *everywhere* you've posted for the last two years -
even by your former allies - because you're you... a liar and a manipulator.
You're well known for conjuring up stories and "experiences" and
manipulating facts to suit your agenda and to justify your selfishness and
laziness.
I'd like to point out, that "you folks" includes *everyone* who knows you -
and not only this group.
Yngver
>news:20010927114939...@mb-cg.aol.com...
>
>> 1....the agreement was
>
>> 2...one of the reasons the breeder wanted him neutered quickly was so she
>could
>> send the papers out -
>
>Of course, this story is obviously *another* lie that you just conjured up
>because you couldn't sleaze out of the fact that you bought your cat -
>cheap - from an unethical, backyard breeder who breeds cats with genetic
>defects in their line.. The breeder wanted him neutered quickly before you
>had a chance to breed him so the genetic defect wouldn't be traced back to
>her lines which would devalue her stock and damage her reputation...
>
>> I'm not sure if you folks are simply critisizing cause its me and you feel
>the need to condemn
>> everything I do or if you really believe what you are saying.
Well, for my part, of course I believe what I am saying or I wouldn't say it.
And yes, with your two year history of fabrication, of course you are going to
be criticized because you have absolutely no credibility. Can you give a single
reason why, with your history, anyone on any of these cat boards would believe
a word you say?
Yngver
>>
>> can see the contract online at
>> http://community.webtv.net/zuzu22/Adoptionagreement
>
>I don't agree with:
>"I agree to trim the cat's nails regularly."
>
>I've never had to trim any of my cat's nails. They all seem to be doing
>fine on their own. I think that's an unnecessary clause.
>
>This is also a bit ridiculous:
>
>6) I understand that exposure to cigarette smoke has been shown to cause
>asthma in cats and I agree that the cat I am adopting will reside in a
>smoke-free environment.
>
>They don't even require that for adopting out *humans*. It would
>effectively mean I could never have a cat, because my husband smokes.
>
>The premium food bit is also a bit off....
>
>You must sell very expensive, pedigreed cats.
>
>I personally have never had to buy a cat. They always seem to find *me*,
>not the other way 'round!
>
>--
contract nor is there any mention that these are "expensive, pedigreed" cats,
nor is she selling cats. It's an adoption agreement.
I think Megan includes these provisions to make sure these cats are adopted out
to good homes. After all, it is her right to screen potential adopters as she
chooses, just as it's your right to go elsewhere to adopt.
zuz...@webtv.net
>This is also a bit ridiculous:
>6) I understand that exposure to cigarette
>smoke has been shown to cause asthma
>in cats and I agree that the cat I am
>adopting will reside in a smoke-free
>environment.
>They don't even require that for adopting
>out *humans*. It would effectively mean I
>could never have a cat, because my
>husband smokes.
Smoking is a disgusting habit, and is a health hazard not only for the
smoker, but those that are forced to breath second hand smoke. If you
feel it's ok to subject cats to that, there's nothing I can do about it,
but you certainly wouldn't get a cat from me as its health is more
important to me than your husband.
>The premium food bit is also a bit off....
>You must sell very expensive, pedigreed
>cats.
I don't sell pedigree cats. I rescue cats from the streets and find them
homes, and I want to make sure they go to people that have no problem
feeding them good quality food.
Megan
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com
Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=244574
SLK03
>feel it's ok to subject cats to that, there's nothing I can do about it,
>but you certainly wouldn't get a cat from me as its health is more
>important to me than your husband.
wow what a sweet compassionate person you are, telling a potential buyer that
her husband doesn't matter. Better perfect the art of people skills as you lack
them.
>I don't sell pedigree cats. I rescue cats from the streets and find them
>homes, and I want to make sure they go to people that have no problem
>feeding them good quality food.
You do realize that plenty of cats live long healthy lives eating Meow Mix,
9-Lives, Friskies etc. All cat food sold meets certain standards and there are
many different brands as cats are very much individuals.
You need to learn to have respect for your buyers, trust them and respect them
to make the decisions they feel are best for THEIR cat. Until you can give up
some of that control you really shouldn't relinquish any cat as you can't deal
with relinquishing the control. Maybe it would be best for you to name your
business "megan's rent a cat" and simply let new pet owners rent the cat for 14
days to see if they really want a cat, return it and then they can go adopt
their own cat.
Just out of curiosity could you please tell how many people signed that
contract and over what period of time? How many cats are you trying to find
homes for as of this moment and for how long have you been trying to find homes
for them?
Yngver
>>This is also a bit ridiculous:
>>6) I understand that exposure to cigarette
>>smoke has been shown to cause asthma
>>in cats and I agree that the cat I am
>>adopting will reside in a smoke-free
>>environment.
>>They don't even require that for adopting
>>out *humans*. It would effectively mean I
>>could never have a cat, because my
>>husband smokes.
>
>Smoking is a disgusting habit, and is a health hazard not only for the
>smoker, but those that are forced to breath second hand smoke. If you
>feel it's ok to subject cats to that, there's nothing I can do about it,
>but you certainly wouldn't get a cat from me as its health is more
>important to me than your husband.
And actually, in regards to adopting humans, it may be true that with a public
agency once the parents have relinquished rights, adoptive parents who smoke
may not be at a disadvantage, but with private adoptions, if an expectant
mother wants her child raised in a smoke-free environment, she has the right to
choose adoptive parents who do not smoke.
Yngver
>Mix,
>> 9-Lives, Friskies etc.
>
>or foods that contain more phosphorus! Ever wonder why the incidence of CRF
>in cats is so high, or are you normally not that inquisitive? Because most
>cats are feed grocery store brands with low-quality protein. The poorer the
>quality of protein, the more waste products the kidneys have to filter from
>the blood and the higher the workload placed on them... The higher the
>quality of protein the less waste produced by protein catobolism and the
>less waste products the kidneys need to filter. I guess you also never
>wondered why the kidneys are usually the first organs to go....either.
>(That information was for the benefit of others - I know you're too cheap to
>spring for good food)
>
>> All cat food sold meets certain standards
>
>nutrients are just as, if not more, detrimental than deficiencies....
>
>Your ignorance of feline nutrition is only surpassed by your ignorance of
>feline anatomy... Hey, but don't feel bad; what you lack in intelligence you
>make for in stupidity...
>
>
>and there are
>> many different brands as cats are very much individuals.
>
>looks like you don't know, either...
>
>>
>> You need to learn to have respect for your buyers,
>
>years*, the fact that Megan *rescues* strays and *adopts* them out *still*
>hasn't penetrated your self-supporting delusion!
>
>
>> trust them
>
>She can't take the chance on one being a psycho like you.
>
>
>> to make the decisions they feel are best for THEIR cat.
>
>what's best for their cats... You're a perfect example.
>
>
>Until you can give up
>> some of that control you really shouldn't relinquish any cat
>
>control! You dismembered and disjointed them, and one died of a heart
>attack - possibly from decompensating from the severe physiological stress
>of multiple partial digital amputations....
You see, for Michelle, it's a matter of control. But I think for most people
involved in cat welfare issue, it's a matter of education. Discussing an
agreement like Megan's helps educate prospective adopters on feline health and
behavior issues.
Unfortunately there are many people who, like Michelle, have not really thought
much about feline nutrition, and will feed Friskies and Fancy Feast unless
taught to take a more informed look at cat food ingredients. It's true some
people may feel a minimal diet is good enough, but fortunately many cat owners
want to provide more optimal nutrition, if taught what to look for.
>
>
>> Just out of curiosity could you please tell how many people signed that
>> contract and over what period of time?
>
>Its not the quantity that's important, psycho, its the quality of the homes.
>
>
>how long have you been trying to find homes
>> for them?
>
>Since Megan runs a no-kill rescue, as I do, my guess is she would rather
>wait a little longer to find them a *good* home than place them sooner with
>a psychopath like you... I know I would.
>
Shena Delian O'Brien
>
> Smoking is a disgusting habit, and is a health hazard not only for the
> smoker, but those that are forced to breath second hand smoke.
You do know what air purifiers are, right?
I feel sorry for you that you've never met a courteous smoker. Not all
of them smoke in the house, you know.
> I don't sell pedigree cats. I rescue cats from the streets and find them
> homes, and I want to make sure they go to people that have no problem
> feeding them good quality food.
You do know that you can buy purina special care in the store, right?
SLK03
get Pro Plan and Sheba. I tried to feed them Science Diet, Iams, and Eukaneuba
but they growled and hissed and backed away from the food. Just was pointing
out that the majority of people do feed standard grocery store brands and their
cats do just fine on them. They key is to stick with one food and not switch
brands as that can cause problems.
>You see, for Michelle, it's a matter of control. But I think for most people
>involved in cat welfare issue, it's a matter of education. Discussing an
>agreement like Megan's helps educate prospective adopters on feline health
>and
>behavior issues.
Discussion and inputting your ideas is one thing, forcing someone to sign away
their rights and responsibilities and control everything in that cats life is
not a matter of education, its a matter of not being able to fully relinquish
the cat.
>Unfortunately there are many people who, like Michelle, have not really
>thought
>much about feline nutrition, and will feed Friskies and Fancy Feast unless
>taught to take a more informed look at cat food ingredients.
ROFLMAO whether you like it or not, those foods are acceptable and many cats
do live long, healthy lives eating them. The only reason I use Pro Plan over
9-Lives is one of my cats developed a food allergy to 9-Lives and my vet
suggested I try it.
>It's true some
>people may feel a minimal diet is good enough, but fortunately many cat
>owners
>want to provide more optimal nutrition, if taught what to look for.
But it still remains the owners decision, others can suggest but cannot demand.
If it ain't your cat it ain't your decision and once you relinquish the cat it
ain't your cat anymore. Megan, read that last sentence as many times as it
takes to understand it.
SLK03
>
>I feel sorry for you that you've never met a courteous smoker. Not all
>of them smoke in the house, you know.
I smoke and people come into my apartment and comment that their suprised that
they don't smell it. Some of us smokers know how to vent the place and use air
purifiers. So you ain't the only one who feels this way.
Just to show you some non-smokers can be courteous and some can be jerks....I
go to lunch occasionally with my parents and my 92 year old grandmother. None
of them smoke and yet they are kind enough to get a table in the smoking
section because of me. There was one time where apparently the non-smoking
section was full and someone didn't want to wait and sat in the smoking
section. A little time went by and just as I began to light up a cigarette the
woman started that fake cough and demand I put it out, um wasn't lit yet when
she began her little scene. Before I could even respond my grandmother let the
woman have it, it was pretty funny. My grandmother than asked the waiter to
check and see if there were any tables free in the non-smoking section and if
he could please reseat the woman.....and he did. LOL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rebecca sprang
SLK03 wrote:
> First of all whoever was babling about what kinds of foods I feed my cats, they
> get Pro Plan and Sheba. I tried to feed them Science Diet, Iams, and Eukaneuba
> but they growled and hissed and backed away from the food. Just was pointing
> out that the majority of people do feed standard grocery store brands
um, Sheba *is* a standard grocery store brand. I don't know where you got the idea
that it was a premium food.
Rebecca
--
"The internet was invented specifically for displaying pictures of one's cat."
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/wondertwnz
tosh
SLK03 wrote:
> I tried to feed them Science Diet, Iams, and Eukaneuba
> but they growled and hissed and backed away from the food.
I have *never* seen a cat growl and hiss at food they don't like. They sniff it, then if
they don't like it they walk off. You must have been trying to smoke those banana peels
again.
Nancy.
--
"Something's going down tonight,
Something with the man!"
--Wesley, from Angel.
Jennifer
wrote:
>
>
>SLK03 wrote:
>
>> I tried to feed them Science Diet, Iams, and Eukaneuba
>> but they growled and hissed and backed away from the food.
>
>I have *never* seen a cat growl and hiss at food they don't like. They sniff it, then if
>they don't like it they walk off. You must have been trying to smoke those banana peels
>again.
What does smoking banana peels do? Is it cheaper than... oh, sorry,
never mind. I've made a hash of things again...
Jen
Cat
>
> Just to show you some non-smokers can be courteous and some can be
jerks....I
> go to lunch occasionally with my parents and my 92 year old grandmother.
None
> of them smoke and yet they are kind enough to get a table in the smoking
> section because of me. There was one time where apparently the non-smoking
> section was full and someone didn't want to wait and sat in the smoking
> section. A little time went by and just as I began to light up a cigarette
the
> woman started that fake cough and demand I put it out, um wasn't lit yet
when
> she began her little scene. Before I could even respond my grandmother
let the
> woman have it, it was pretty funny. My grandmother than asked the waiter
to
> check and see if there were any tables free in the non-smoking section and
if
> he could please reseat the woman.....and he did. LOL.
That's unbelievable! Your family goes out of their way so YOU can smoke,
infest yourself, AND them? So you can submit your poor 92 year old
grandmother to your filthy second hand smoke? That's dispicable. You
should be courteous enough NOT to smoke in front of them, *especially* an
elderly person.
Kelly
SLK03
>idea
>that it was a premium food.
yes but more expensive than the stuff that stinks, this actually smells like
food and FYI three cats get one can per day to split as a treat. Their main
food is Pro Plan which IS a premium food. And anyway doesn't matter what your
opinion is as they are my cats and I will feed them what I think is appropriate
for them.
SLK03
so cause you have never seen it, it can't possibly be ROFLMAO
>They sniff it, then if
>>they don't like it they walk off.
or back away as my cats did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SLK03
>infest yourself, AND them?
yes, its called tolerance and being courteous...it is not me who insists on
this, I leave it up to them to decide. Most people have mutual respect for one
another but apparently you're just another one here who must get their own way
and has no tolerance for others. To each his own.
Yngver
>infest yourself, AND them? So you can submit your poor 92 year old
>grandmother to your filthy second hand smoke? That's dispicable. You
>should be courteous enough NOT to smoke in front of them, *especially* an
>elderly person.
>
of courtesy--a smoker should not be inflicting such physical discomfort on
other people.
Many people who don't want to be subjected to smoke do not object simply
because it's unpleasant, but because it gives them hives, a sore throat, and
runny, itching eyes.
No one in a public place like a restaurant should have to become ill because a
smoker can't wait to get home to smoke.
Yngver
>> First of all whoever was babling about what kinds of foods I feed my cats,
>they
>> get Pro Plan and Sheba.
>
>eh, psycho? Not. As I said, what you lack in intelligence you make up for
>in stupidity....
And obstinance.
>
>*All* of the foods you mentioned use "least cost formulation" to compound
>their diets. This means that the proportion and quality of ingredients
>fluctuate with ingredient prices -- IOW, as the prices of ingredients go up,
>the quality of ingredients goes down. The final formula at any given time
>thus depends on a computer program, which may, but usually does not,
>generate the same formulation as the one actually tested. Manufacturers of
>premium cat foods, such as Nutro use fixed formulas that do not change on
>the basis of ingredient prices - the high-quality remains the same from
>batch to batch. This is one of the reasons for the higher price of premium
>foods. As I said, your ignorance of feline nutrition is surpassed only by
>your ignorance of feline anatomy.... certainly explains why you have sickly
>cats...
>
Phil, you have an excellent point. It's quite usual for people to find that by
feeding a higher quality diet, their cats get sick much less often.
>
>I tried to feed them Science Diet, Iams, and Eukaneuba
>> but they growled and hissed and backed away from the food.
>
>Its more likely that *you* growled and hissed and backed away from the food
>because of the higher price....
And there are still better foods than those to feed.
>
>Just was pointing
>> out that the majority of people do feed standard grocery store brands and
>their
>> cats do just fine on them.
>
>The majority of people are not well informed about feline nutrition (neither
>are the majority of vets). And "cats do just fine on them".... "do just
>fine" - "fine" as in your sickly cats are doing "fine"....?
>
>
>>
>> >You see, for Michelle, it's a matter of control. But I think for most
>people
>> >involved in cat welfare issue, it's a matter of education. Discussing an
>> >agreement like Megan's helps educate prospective adopters on feline
>health
>> >and
>> >behavior issues.
>>
>> Discussion and inputting your ideas is one thing, forcing someone to sign
>
>Wow! You *really* are psychotic!!! This is a perfect example of how you
>*deliberately* misinterpret and misrepresent the statements of others and
>conjure up stories and imaginary senerios... *No one* is "forcing" anyone
>to sign anything, psycho! If you don't like the terms of the contract,
>simply don't sign it and go somewhere else... "forcing someone to sign"?
>Bwaaahaahaaha!
LOL. Good one, Michelle. Nobody is forcing anyone to adopt a cat, either.
>
>>
>> >Unfortunately there are many people who, like Michelle, have not really
>> >thought
>> >much about feline nutrition, and will feed Friskies and Fancy Feast
>unless
>> >taught to take a more informed look at cat food ingredients.
>>
>> ROFLMAO whether you like it or not, those foods are acceptable
>
>"Acceptable" to you, psycho, not to people who want the best for their cats.
Unlike Michelle, I would rather feed a diet that is optimal, not merely
acceptable.
>
>and many cats
>> do live long, healthy lives eating them.
And many cats could live longer, healthier lives by switching to better diets.
>
>Like your sickly cats?
>
>The only reason I use Pro Plan over
>> 9-Lives is one of my cats developed a food allergy to 9-Lives and my vet
>> suggested I try it.
>
>Is that the same vet who told you "declawing is noninvasive" and a cat's
>third phalanx is "less than a millimeter"???? Either she knows about as
>much about feline nutrition as she does about feline anatomy... or lying....
>AGAIN.
>
>>
>> >It's true some
>> >people may feel a minimal diet is good enough, but fortunately many cat
>> >owners
>> >want to provide more optimal nutrition, if taught what to look for.
>>
>> But it still remains the owners decision,
>
>That's right, psycho! If you don't like the terms of the contract.... decide
>not to sign it.
>
Yep. You're right, Michelle, it's your decision not to adopt a cat from the
kind of shelter that would screen you out anyway.
Jennifer
>>That's unbelievable! Your family goes out of their way so YOU can smoke,
>>infest yourself, AND them?
>
>yes, its called tolerance and being courteous...it is not me who insists on
>this, I leave it up to them to decide. Most people have mutual respect for one
>another but apparently you're just another one here who must get their own way
>and has no tolerance for others. To each his own.
Well, exactly, you leave it up to them to decide and being nice people
they decide to humour you. If you had any sensitivity to other people
there would be no question that your party would be seated in the
non-smoking area out of respect for the majority of people present.
Jen
Gerry
"tosh" <to...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3BB4D5FF...@opera.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> SLK03 wrote:
>
> > I tried to feed them Science Diet, Iams, and Eukaneuba
> > but they growled and hissed and backed away from the food.
>
> I have *never* seen a cat growl and hiss at food they don't like. They
sniff it, then if
> they don't like it they walk off. You must have been trying to smoke
those banana peels
> again.
>
I've seen it as many times as a cat turning away *whimpering* because it
tenderly outstretched its paw but was too scared to scratch your face with
its claws! LMAO
SLK's stories are a riot.
Gerry
SLK03
>matter
>of courtesy--a smoker should not be inflicting such physical discomfort on
>other people.
Just as I would never light up a cigarette in a non-smoking area a non-smoker
cannot demand that people in a smoking area not smoke simply cause they weren't
patient enough to wait for a table in the non-smoking section.
>No one in a public place like a restaurant should have to become ill because
>a
>smoker can't wait to get home to smoke.
If the restaurant provides a smoking section people should feel free to smoke
there and those who dislike it should sit in the non-smoking section. A
non-smoker cannot come into a smoking section and demand that people not smoke,
well they can but they won't get far with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SLK03
>they decide to humour you.
like I said its called respecting others, something you obviously don't have
the first clue about.
> If you had any sensitivity to other people
>there would be no question that your party would be seated in the
>non-smoking area out of respect for the majority of people present.
did it ever occur to you that there are some non-smokers who are not bothered
by smoke? That means actually accepting something that someone else does that
you personally would not do, something a controlling, intolerant person like
yourself just would never be able to comprehend.
Lyn
> >I was bored and looking thru some
> >cattery websites. I noticed that alot of
> >them have a "no declaw" policy. So, I
> >gotta ask. How do they make buyers
> >adhere to that? Are they talking about all
> >4 claws or just the back ones? Thanks in
> >advance for enlightening me.
>
> Declawing is prohibited from being done to <any> feet.
> While you can't always be sure buyers will adhere to a no-declaw policy,
> you can have them sign a contract that has severe penalties if they fail
> to comply and do follow-ups now and then. Most of the time you can tell
> if people are truly against declawing just by engaging them in a
> conversation and asking subtle questions, although sometimes it's not
> enough. The motivation for me to develop my website
> http://www.stopdeclaw.com was exactly because a woman I adopted two
> kittens to declawed them after she had promised not to, and one of them
> has been a victim of unimaginable suffering ever since. I also now have
> a contract that has a severe fine plus the cat must be returned to me if
> the no declaw clause is violated. I watch for people's reaction when
> they read it, too, because if there is any hesitation, or argument about
> the fine being high, my feeling is that they may decide to declaw
> anyway. If I see this happen they won't get a cat from me. Period. You> Anyone that wants to is free to use all or part of the contract for
> their own adoptions.
>
> Megan
>
I have denied adoptions when it was revealed that the prospective
"owner" wanted to declaw the cat (One recent case was a ten year old
cat!). When educated about what declawing is, many people agree that
it is barbaric. Others simply don't give a shit, and feel like they
can do whatever they want with the cat. Those are the ones who get
really pissed when they are denied the adoption. Too bad. I refuse
to have blood on my hands.
Megan's contract is pretty much standard fare for organizations that
truly care about cats. Bottom line is, if you don't like the
contract, go elsewhere.
-L.
Lyn
> >Shena=A0Delian=A0O'Brien wrote:
> >>This is also a bit ridiculous:
> >>6) I understand that exposure to cigarette
> >>smoke has been shown to cause asthma
> >>in cats and I agree that the cat I am
> >>adopting will reside in a smoke-free
> >>environment.
> >>They don't even require that for adopting
> >>out *humans*. It would effectively mean I
> >>could never have a cat, because my
> >>husband smokes.
> >
> >Smoking is a disgusting habit, and is a health hazard not only for the
> >smoker, but those that are forced to breath second hand smoke. If you
> >feel it's ok to subject cats to that, there's nothing I can do about it,
> >but you certainly wouldn't get a cat from me as its health is more
> >important to me than your husband.
>
> And actually, in regards to adopting humans, it may be true that with a public
> agency once the parents have relinquished rights, adoptive parents who smoke
> may not be at a disadvantage, but with private adoptions, if an expectant
> mother wants her child raised in a smoke-free environment, she has the right to
> choose adoptive parents who do not smoke.
>
This is very true. Many birth mothers prefer non-smoking families, as
they understand the dangers of second-hand smoke, including a higher
incidence of SIDS in families who smoke. Smoking kills 400,000 people
in the US each year. To say it is a benign habit is ridiculous.
-L.
Jennifer
>>Well, exactly, you leave it up to them to decide and being nice people
>>they decide to humour you.
>
>like I said its called respecting others, something you obviously don't have
>the first clue about.
>
>> If you had any sensitivity to other people
>>there would be no question that your party would be seated in the
>>non-smoking area out of respect for the majority of people present.
>
>did it ever occur to you that there are some non-smokers who are not bothered
>by smoke? That means actually accepting something that someone else does that
>you personally would not do, something a controlling, intolerant person like
>yourself just would never be able to comprehend.
Excuse me. I'm an ex-smoker. If I'm asked "smoking or non-smoking" I
give my preference but go by the majority.
One of the things that re-inforced my battle to stop smoking was the
smell of smokers.
Jen
rebecca sprang
SLK03 wrote:
> >um, Sheba *is* a standard grocery store brand. I don't know where you got the
> >idea
> >that it was a premium food.
>
> yes but more expensive than the stuff that stinks,
whatever. I don't know what the "stuff that stinks" is, but last time I looked
Sheba was something like 40 cents.
> this actually smells like
> food and FYI three cats get one can per day to split as a treat. Their main
> food is Pro Plan which IS a premium food. And anyway doesn't matter what your
> opinion is as they are my cats and I will feed them what I think is appropriate
> for them.
no need to get snippy. it's just that you've described it as "premium" in the past
and I was wondering how you came up with that.
Brandon Hahn
> infest yourself, AND them? So you can submit your poor 92 year old
> grandmother to your filthy second hand smoke? That's dispicable. You
> should be courteous enough NOT to smoke in front of them, *especially* an
> elderly person.
I smoke. When I go out to eat with non-smoker family or friends I always
let them decide where we sit. It doesn't particularly bother me to sit in
the non-smoking section. I suspect the same is true of SLK. If I am in
someone elses home I always ask and have no problem going outside to
indulge. When I am in my own home, however, it is a different story. Same
thing with being in the smoking section of a resturant. The person who was
about to complain about SLK's smoking was clearly in the wrong. If they
have allergies or any other reason that they absolutely cannot stand to have
smokers near them, then they should not be in the smoking section. If SLK's
family and Grandmother cared, they would have asked for the Non-smoking
section. They didn't. They are adults and can make their own decisions.
Brandon Hahn
"Yngver" <yng...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010928163047...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> >That's unbelievable! Your family goes out of their way so YOU can smoke,
> >infest yourself, AND them? So you can submit your poor 92 year old
> >grandmother to your filthy second hand smoke? That's dispicable. You
> >should be courteous enough NOT to smoke in front of them, *especially* an
> >elderly person.
> >
> Furthermore, some people are actually allergic to smoke. It's not just a
matter
> of courtesy--a smoker should not be inflicting such physical discomfort on
> other people.
Then they should not be sitting in the smoking section of a resturant. Or
they should go to one of the many resturants where smoking is not allowed at
all.
> Many people who don't want to be subjected to smoke do not object simply
> because it's unpleasant, but because it gives them hives, a sore throat,
and
> runny, itching eyes.
> No one in a public place like a restaurant should have to become ill
because a
> smoker can't wait to get home to smoke.
This is why there are non-smoking sections. This is why many resturants
have a complete no-smoking policy. If you don't want to be around smoke, do
not sit in the smoking sections of resturants. If even that bothers you,(I
realize that some are not seperated very well, if at all) then go to a
resturant that completely bans smoking. It's really simple.