Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!??

"Cheryl" wrote
Janet Boss wrote in

>> Snipping is appropriate in most forums, can't figure out why it
>> isn't here. Following a thread isn't that hard.

The problem is when the software used doesnt add the right markers so you
cant tell later easily who said what. Snipping *is* good or it gets too
unwieldy.

> Because the snipping is removing relavent parts of the
> conversation. I believe in snipping, but not when it refers to
> what I'm replying to.

This would be Charyl right?

>>> It isn't rhetoric and it isn't a fairy tale. If there weren't
>>> breeders pushing defective animals, the ones already here
>>> needing a home would have one. Why is that so hard to
>>> understand?

I cant tell who said this, doesnt matter. Fanatics think that way.
Fanatics like this had me leave the dog echo. If you said you had a puppy
everyone went 'sweet'. If you said your dog was having puppies, you were
attacked immediately. If you mentioned a responsible breeder, fanatics
attacked in droves.

I do NOT want to see this newsgroup devolve to the low level mentality of
that other one.

> are intact. Breeders add to it by breeding so-called pure breds
> that displace homes that could be one for the shelter animals.
> Responsible breeders are only a small portion of the
> overpopulation. Are you arguing responsible breeding or just
> breeding? What are you so mad about with this thread?

Some get upset at ANY mention of allowing a pet to breed. Me, I have rescue
pets all around and only 1 (long ago, I'm older, old age took him away) came
from a breeder yet was also a 'rescue' pet in a way. 'Failure to thrive'
Himalayan from a reputable breeder and 'free to a good home if fixed on
time'. Came with medical records and an estimate he'd not live to see 5
years of age and never should be bred.
(Roscoe lived to be 13, was never more than 6.5 lbs, but was healthy right
up til the last day when he silently passed on in his sleep).

>> responsible breeders, by definition. Keep cleaning up the
>> mess made by irresponsible "breeders" and it's a vicious cycle
>> of supporting THEM.

There is nothing wrong with proper breeding of a pedigree to keep it around.
While I *choose* to have rescue pets, I do not denigrate those who desire to
have a relatively pure-bred (home level, not show level often) pet.

> And how do regular people really know the difference?

They seldom do. This sets the fanatics off.
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

"Janet Boss" wrote in message

> In article ,
> Cheryl wrote:
>
> >
> > This honestly is the real deal. So many just don't understand it.
> > just won't understand it.
>
> Maybe because it's based on poor data and rhetoric?


Naa, I'd say its true. Its obvious that you're trying to defend breeders
because most of your inept customers have pedigreed dogs.


Responsible
> breeders

...is a contradiction in terms. A "responsible breeder" wouldn't breed more
animals while millions of cats and dogs are killed every year because there
aren't enough homes.


are neither filling the shelters nor costing shelter animals a
> home.


They most certainly are contributing to the overpopulation problem. They're
breeding more cats and dogs while millions of cats and dogs are killed every
year because there aren't enough homes, aren't they? If breeding was banned
or at least regulated, more home would be available to shelter animals. Its
really a simple concept- even for you to understand.



>When will the zealots get THAT?


Probably when the morally bankrupt breeders understand there are too many
animals already-- we don't need any more.



>
> I've been doing shelter and rescue work since 1992


Sure you have... What did you do, adopt a few pedigreed dogs and sell them
to your customers?


and have owned more
> shelter/rescue/second hand pets than purebred purchased pets, so please
> - I am very far from "understanding".


Wow! That's a really large sample size that can certainly be extrapolatated
to the rest of the country....




> I actually think and understand

Yeah, you think and understand... you're just not very good at it: Here's
your thinking and understanding: 2 many animals + more animals = breed more
animals.
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

In article , "Phil P."
wrote:

>
>
> Naa, I'd say its true. Its obvious that you're trying to defend breeders
> because most of your inept customers have pedigreed dogs.
>

My clients are a very mixed bag. Most of them are very dedicated to
doing everything possible for their dogs, regardless of heritage.
>
> Responsible
> > breeders
>
> ..is a contradiction in terms. A "responsible breeder" wouldn't breed more
> animals while millions of cats and dogs are killed every year because there
> aren't enough homes.

BZZZZT - apples and oranges. It's a true AR argument, but it doesn't
hold water.

> They most certainly are contributing to the overpopulation problem. They're
> breeding more cats and dogs while millions of cats and dogs are killed every
> year because there aren't enough homes, aren't they?

Wrong again! There aren't enough responsible homes for the millions of
irresponsibly bred and placed animals. By the very nature of the
definition, responsible breeders are not placing in irresponsible homes
nor are their animals winding up in shelters. Your argument that those
homes would/should adopt a shelter animal instead is without legs.

> If breeding was banned
> or at least regulated, more home would be available to shelter animals. Its
> really a simple concept- even for you to understand.

Incorrect! Any puppy is not necessarily the puppy someone wants.
Poorly bred and socialized animals are not what many are looking for.
Again, why should responsible owners have to clean up the mess made by
BYBs who never end?
>
> > I've been doing shelter and rescue work since 1992
>
>
> Sure you have... What did you do, adopt a few pedigreed dogs and sell them
> to your customers?

You're assinine.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

"Phil P." wrote
> "Janet Boss" wrote in message

> Wow! You're really dense-- or you're an idiot. Its the not placing that's
> the problem- its the BREEDING more animals.

IE: No more cats allowed to have kittens. Fanatical to assume no more
kittensd as in 10-15 years we would not have domestic cats.

> Your argument that those
>> homes would/should adopt a shelter animal instead is without legs.
>
> I can see why you think so... its too logical for you to understand.

Phil, you are not able to think logically about this. You are talking to
people who mostly have cats from just such facilities.

> You're not the rescue type.

What do you know about her other than your assumptions? You already told me
to 'take my head out of my ass' which is not condusive to actually
discussing an issue.

If you want to be an ass, you are doing fine. Folks will ignore you.
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

Sorry that will never happen I will and many many many others will listen to
Phil long before I listen to people that just pop in to run their mouths
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

"cshenk" wrote in message

> >>> It isn't rhetoric and it isn't a fairy tale. If there weren't
> >>> breeders pushing defective animals, the ones already here
> >>> needing a home would have one. Why is that so hard to
> >>> understand?
>
> I cant tell who said this, doesnt matter. Fanatics think that way.

Yeah- I'm a fanatic- I'm fanatical about preventing as many deaths as I can.


You need to take your head out of your ass and take a walk through a kill
shelter on kill day- then see if you still think there's nothing wrong with
breeding more animals.
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

"Phil P." wrote
> "cshenk" wrote in message

> Yeah- I'm a fanatic- I'm fanatical about preventing as many deaths as I
> can.

> You need to take your head out of your ass and take a walk through a kill
> shelter on kill day- then see if you still think there's nothing wrong
> with
> breeding more animals.

Phil, this has been a nice group. I'm asking you to not try to change that.

I have never bred a pet. I have had only 1 'pedigree' pet and that was a
special circumstance from a reputable breeder who didnt believe in killing
the occasional 'mistakes' (and they ALL have them) but letting them free to
good homes to live out what time they have. I was advance warned Roscoe
would probably never make 5 years of age and be very expensive in vet bills.
If they could not find a home for him, they would have had to give him the
big silver needle but they found me. He was 'fixed' a little earlier than
normal because he was *not* to breed (genetics bad).

Some folks want pedigree animals. To assume they will just take anything
from the local pet pound is a mistake. The people you want to go after, is
the non-pedigree group with a heinz-57 they were too cheap to fix.

That said i am very impressed with my local K-9 organization. Sorry to be
slightly offtpic in a 'cat' group but I adopted a cat (Daisy- hard to place,
behavior related, took 18 months to get an offer) and a dog (Cash, beagle
mix with they think bull mastiff). Cash due to heartworms has heart damage
and was hard to place. He also due to the health problems could not be
fixed. It's the rare time you get a rescue dog who hasnt been fixed. They
have been emailing me and I've been passing back the Vet's info on him.
6SEP if all is well, he will be snipped. At that time he is presumed to be
just shy of 3 years old. He's been turned down twice already for snipping
earlier so we keep him closely held. His heart is not up to mating.
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:02:40 -0400, cshenk wrote:

> Some folks want pedigree animals. To assume they will just take
> anything from the local pet pound is a mistake.

Yep. You (in the generic all-encompassing "you," not you in
particular cshenk) can rail against those people all you want. You
can even say that if they won't take a shelter cat, they don't deserve
any cat at all. That's your right. But whether these people get
their purebreds or not doesn't affect whether shelter pets would get
rescued if they wouldn't want to rescue a shelter pet anyway.

It's the same sort of reasoning that leads media industry associations
to try to crack down on piracy, because they think that if someone can
no longer pirate he will instead buy everything he would otherwise
have downloaded. It doesn't work like that.

--
Chris Meadows aka | WWW: http://www.terrania.us | Somebody
Robotech_Master | ICQ: 5477383 AIM: RoboMastr | help, I'm
| Skype, LJ-Gizmo: Robotech_Master | trapped in
robotech RemoveThis @eyrie.org | Yahoo: robotech_master_2000 | a sig file!
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

"cshenk" wrote in message

> "Phil P." wrote
> > "cshenk" wrote in message
>
> > Yeah- I'm a fanatic- I'm fanatical about preventing as many deaths as I
> > can.
>
> > You need to take your head out of your ass and take a walk through a
kill
> > shelter on kill day- then see if you still think there's nothing wrong
> > with
> > breeding more animals.
>
> Phil, this has been a nice group. I'm asking you to not try to change
that.


You haven't been here very long. If you support breeding, you won't find it
so nice.


>
> Some folks want pedigree animals. To assume they will just take anything
> from the local pet pound is a mistake.


"Anything"? Poor choice of words for shelter animals.

There are millions of animals already here to choose from.
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

"Phil P." wrote
> "cshenk" wrote in message

>> > You need to take your head out of your ass and take a walk through a
> kill
>> > shelter on kill day- then see if you still think there's nothing wrong
>> > with
>> > breeding more animals.
>>
>> Phil, this has been a nice group. I'm asking you to not try to change
> that.

> You haven't been here very long. If you support breeding, you won't find
> it
> so nice.

In other words, you intend to flame innocent bystanders with any advice you
do not agree with.

I would hate to see this newsgroup devolve to that. I came here because
specifically it seemed not that way.

So, 'you've been here a long time' and all the rest of us should shut up?

>> Some folks want pedigree animals. To assume they will just take anything
>> from the local pet pound is a mistake.

> "Anything"? Poor choice of words for shelter animals.

That was a quote of another. I have never had an aminal that wouldnt
qualify as 'shelter' other than Roscoe which has been mentioned several
times today and is essentially the same.
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

"cshenk" wrote in message

> "Phil P." wrote
> > "Janet Boss" wrote in message
>
> > Wow! You're really dense-- or you're an idiot. Its the not placing
that's
> > the problem- its the BREEDING more animals.
>
> IE: No more cats allowed to have kittens. Fanatical to assume no more
> kittensd as in 10-15 years we would not have domestic cats.

Well, that about sums up your mentality. That would never happen. Btw, I was
talking about breeders breeding more cats.

How about this: We can start breeding again when all the shelters are empty
and the killing stops.




>
> > Your argument that those
> >> homes would/should adopt a shelter animal instead is without legs.
> >
> > I can see why you think so... its too logical for you to understand.
>
> Phil, you are not able to think logically about this.

I see. And you think its logical to keep breeding more animals while
millions of animals are killed every year in shelters?







>
> > You're not the rescue type.
>
> What do you know about her other than your assumptions?


More than I care to.


You already told me
> to 'take my head out of my ass' which is not condusive to actually
> discussing an issue.

Whatever gave you the idea that I wanted to discuss breeding?
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!?? 

"Phil P." wrote

>> IE: No more cats allowed to have kittens. Fanatical to assume no more
>> kittensd as in 10-15 years we would not have domestic cats.
>
> Well, that about sums up your mentality. That would never happen. Btw, I
> was
> talking about breeders breeding more cats.

Thank you for flame number 1

>> >> homes would/should adopt a shelter animal instead is without legs.
>> >
>> > I can see why you think so... its too logical for you to understand.
>>
>> Phil, you are not able to think logically about this.
>
> I see. And you think its logical to keep breeding more animals while
> millions of animals are killed every year in shelters?

Thank you for another assumption. BTW, all my pets have been shlter sorts
and fixed. Your angst is mis-directed. It may however shy me off to use a
breeder farm next time if folks like you run shelters.

> You already told me
>> to 'take my head out of my ass' which is not condusive to actually
>> discussing an issue.
>
> Whatever gave you the idea that I wanted to discuss breeding?

Whatever the hell made you tell me to take my head out of my ass when I am
am a total rescue pet owner who's had all my pets fixed before breeding
time?

Now what started this thread? One innocent guy with a pedigree cat set to
breeding to another. Then the yahoos got wierd and he left.
 >> Stay informed about: Tom Cat won't breed with in-season queen!??