Mektige
-
Content Count
897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Mektige
-
-
Baby wipes would be fine, if they're safe enough for babies then you can certainly use them on cats. I would get the scent free kind though.
Oh, good! I have two boxes of the unscented that should last us a while then. The common sense of "if they're safe for babies, they're safe for cats" seemed to completely slip my mind.
Durrrr.Thanks.
-
Our "runt" kitty, Indie, seems to enjoy stepping in his poopy once in a while. I've been using a special kitty bathing wipe each time, but since they're rather expensive to be using for things like that, I'd prefer to keep them for use just to bathe the cats. Has anyone ever used baby wipes on kittens? Is there anything in the wipes that would be harmful to them when they lick themselves?
-
I use scoop away with crystals. There is dust when I fill the box, but not when I'm scooping.
Scoop Away! I remember that now. I remember using that one of the first times I had to buy litter and I don't recall it dusting up like that.
Thanks. I'll try that next time.
-
I've used Tidy Cat Small Spaces for over a year because it's clumping litter that's easy to remove and keep things from getting messy.
But it's starting to really mess with me. When I scoop it, it always sends dust up into the air, which I'm sure is full of millions of bacteria and it gets in my face.
Anyone know of any type of clumping litter that DOESN'T do this?
P.S. Posted in New Internet Cafe since it's not directly related to an animal.
-
Is not caring for injured animals an interference in nature? "Playing God," as it were? How do you countenance that but not euthanasia?
And BTW, if you adopted your two newest kits from the shelter, you are REQUIRED to have them spayed/neutered within a certain time span if they had not already been altered. Sorry if that goes against your beliefs.
We help fellow humans, and we help fellow animals. However, when we find a hobo on the street, we do not mercy kill him simply because he is sick. There is no difference, and attempting to say there is would be utter ignorance.
They were neutered when we got them. I do not agree with it, but if it keeps them from being murdered and given a good home instead, then yes, I'll accept that. I believe you're mistaking my beliefs a little, but that's okay, as maybe I've not been quite clear enough. As I said, there's a thin line, and a lot of grey area there, but euthanasia isn't anywhere near that grey area. In fact, it's millions of miles away from it.
-
Mektige - dang you are a naive one aren't you?????
Although I HATE the fact that euthanasians happen, what would you suggest?
I see you say put them on the streets and into the fields and woods and just "let them be", but have you really thought that out (Lily's picture above should have given you an idea of what happens and usually not with as great results)? Dogs & Cats are domesticated animals, they look to US as part of their survival as we trained them to. Yes, they still having hunting instincts, but not to what they were when they really were wild animals. Do you want these ferals and wild packs to roam your property? To fight you for the trash you put out because they are hungry?
OR should we let them be food for coyotes or other animals? Yea, that would be survival - but only those who are the "fittest of the species" or have the ability to run just a split second faster than another in the pack?
Just let them breed? Have you ever read one of these?
http://www.goodsearch.com/Search.aspx?Keyw...t+one+litter%22
Just one litter can produce MILLIONS of babies over just a couple of years if not put into check with sterilization programs. What would you do with them? Again, would you want them all of your property and taking over? Where are they supposed to find food or shelter? Under your house? How do you propose to deal with the unneutered cat who sprays your house or car?
What about those who are "just not wanted" for all kinds of reasons? Would you let them live out their life in a cage just because someone didn't want them any more or couldn't take them because of moving or ????? Living in a cage is not a way to live their entire life. Dogs can and do go crazy, and Cats can return to being feral without interaction. I don't know about you, but that is not the way I would want my companion to live - and yes, I consider all dogs and cats as companions as we as HUMANEs trained and breed and domesticated them to be. If you want us to permanently house them, are you willing to increase your taxes to support a no-kill facility? What about the increase in staffing needs to ensure they are taken care of in this new facility?
Do I agree with euthanasia? Do I agree with forced spay/neuter? Do I support licensing to allow me to have a pet? As far as me personnally, no not necessarily but I do understand why each of those questions are raised and are support for too many reasons. But one thing I do agree with is that PEOPLE(HUMANEs) need to be educated about what it means to have a pet and how take responsibility associated with having a pet or nothing will change.
Are you willing to help get the word out?
While I agree that it's not a perfect solution, it's by far more humane to live and let live. The fact that millions of babies can be born from one litter is somewhat irrelevant considering that the same basically goes for other animals as well, and last I checked there's no one complaining about an overpopulation of coyotes. Why is this? Because animals have a food chain, and although dogs may be closer to the top, that doesn't make them invincible to nature's worst. Dogs are not born domesticated; their natural instincts are far more developed than you're giving them credit for. So, yes, I would prefer a wild dog live under my porch the same way wild birds live in my gutters, the same way wild wasps build nests on my house, and the same way wild deer make bedding in the woods behind my yard.
You can dispute the above claims until the day the earth ends, but the solid truth of the matter is that animals have every right to live out their lives if they so wish. I believe in the animal shelter finding hurt or lost pets and nurturing them the same way many other types of places do for other wild animals. What I don't believe in is taking an innocent animal's life into your own hands and stealing its sentient existence from it. Granted, nature takes its' seemingly unfair toll on our domesticated bretheren many times, but you can't discount the large amount of wild dogs and cats born daily that could live out long and healthy lives if they weren't picked up and eventually killed simply for existing in a place that doesn't have room for them. The place they were found had room for them - it was called earth. It's where they were born, and it's where they were meant to exist.
I have no problems with companion animals, because if the human caretaker can provide them with all of their needs, they are being respected and the caretaker is treating it with equality as a sentient being. There's a fine line to be drawn, and I understand that, but it doesn't discount the fact that euthanasia is a cruel and inhumane action; one of the many that humans feel they have a RIGHT to do. They do not.
-
Mek,
Living on the street and getting by is most often times suffering.
I'm afraid "LILY'S STORY" happens too many times.
"Often times" doesn't give anyone the right to take their lives without their permission. Without the knowledge of what the dog or cat would choose, you're officially committing murder. "Often times" does not give exact numbers. Until "often times" hits the level of "every time", we shouldn't even be CONSIDERING taking their lives.
We have more children than we can count in this country that are starving every day, many of them dying on the streets, and I don't see Human Control picking them up and hauling them away to kill them.
The bottom line is that sentient beings are alive, have the ability to feel and to think for themselves, and if they die on the streets, that is but a portion of the animals who lead moderately normal lives hunting and killing their own food, or relying on the periodic help from loving humans. Survival of the fittest fits so perfectly into this situation that it is, without a doubt, irrefutable.
I believe in what the animal shelters do to help sick dogs or assist in finding people's lost animals. What I disagree with is the notion that a common belief is that "if there's no room, they must die to make room." This is a flawed logic in all manners and goes directly against the work being done.
What's the worst that could happen if you left dogs and cats alone instead of picking them up and eventually killing them? Well, we would live in a world exactly the way it was intended - without humans playing God. Don't blame humans because they don't spay or neuter their pets - in reality, it's not humanity's job to take sexuality from animals. They have a right to flourish under any and all conditions, as that is the way that God (or evolution, if you wish to delve into that bundle of laughs) intended.
So, don't take this as me saying I'm against assisting animals; I am proud of the people who donate their time to help these animals. That doesn't make euthanasia any less of an inhumane and irrelevant action.
-
I love how we think it's our job to play God. 272 living animals died at human hands just because they were "homeless". They wouldn't be homeless if they'd be left to their own devices. Animals were created free - if they don't have a human caretaker, that doesn't make them disposable.
Chew me out if you wish, but the logic of this situation is undermined by most people's ignorance to realize that you're basically committing the same act as aboortzion (what the hell is with this stupid language filter?). You would like to argue that aboortzion is wrong because you're killing a living being who has no say - but do these animals have a say? If they did, I would imagine they would say they'd rather live on the streets and get by, and they would be entitled to such, as they are animals.
Excuses like "many of them are used to humans and can't hunt their own food" is still flawed. By nature, animals have instincts, and survival of the fittest applies very heavily.
Another excuse is that they can be harmful to other pets or animals. So can other wild animals. Entirely flawed logic.
-
If you chill in the upper right corner and just hold down the button, you're virtually invincible unless one sneaks up from below which is really rare. Kill it and then resume position!
-
Hey Met...
How is it having a nice size of the bed all to your self now????
It's fantastic, except when I hear whining on the other side of the bed about how "now we don't get to cuddle as much". Damn it all.
Hehe. -
Well, then here's another we just took! Not quite as unique as that first one, but it's so cute.
-
I couldn't resist snatching a picture of this!
-
Welcome.
-
If Rachel Weisz isn't in it, I don't care for it. I never liked the first two all that much, aside from the eye candy she offered.
-
I live maybe 2 minutes down Ridge Road from Kroger. I always go there; Rite Aid just seems pointless to even be there when Kroger's pharmacists are so much more helpful.
-
Kind of an odd forum for this thread. o_O Shouldn't this be in like...New Internet Cafe?
-
Metkige,
My only problem is the statement you made in that 'other' thread ...and that I wasn't quick enough to reply to:
"I can afford vet care, but it's outrageous. The animal shelter makes us pay $70 to purchase animals from them, or else they eventually kill them, when they could have given them to a loving home (really glad to see them care so much). So, if anyone knows of a place I could get a kitten and afford it for less than $2000, I'd be grateful. Thank you!"
Yes, the Animal Shelter cares and they care one *hell* of a lot!
You are complaining of outrageous prices, yet just adopted two fully-vetted kittens for a fraction of the cost of having the vet work done yourself. The only thing lacking (due to their age) was the rabies shot. With the upcoming low-cost clinic, $10 for the pair.
For $70, your kittens were tested both for leukemia and aids, received their distemper shots, were spayed or neutered and microchipped. These services would have cost at least $150-$200 each at the vet.
Now, the Animal Shelter could not care. Every person who wanted a FREE pet could be given one and we could just roll the dice and hope that they may or may not have them fixed. Then we would get to "kill" more when they all start having those babies because vet care couldn't be afforded or really wasn't a priority by all those "loving homes."
That statement was based on a bit of a rant I was having. It was definitely not something I'm particularly proud of saying. I was merely making a point and took it a little too far.
As for Gleemp, I assure you it was me in the previous threads. The mere difference is that a few people became overly nosey and abrasive, so I rolled with it. I wasn't nearly as much offended as I appeared; I was simply taking up for myself and getting a few laughs at the ignorance some of the people were typing up. This thread, however, is a direct thread made to insult me and my personal business, and while I'm not particularly insulted, I am a bit irritated at the concept.
And Jess, you're right to an extent. I did make some statements claiming I was in need of money badly, and at that very time, we did need the money to handle the power bill which was unexpected. Aside from that, our finances are fine and we've had no trouble supporting our three cats.
-
Why be so rude? It is extremely unbecoming...
I'm rude when others are rude to me. Everyone has turned a single question/complaint into a debate about my damn financial situation and ability to care for animals, and it's pretty immature of the population here to do so. I never said ONCE that I could NOT afford to pay the medical bills for my animals if I needed to. I said it was a bit ridiculous to pay $60 for simple rabies shots. If I had to, I could, but why pay that much if there's an alternative way?
The sudden burst of assumptions started rolling in and it spiraled out of control. Now someone's posted a thread directly related to me and my ability to care for my adopted pets. THAT was rude. Of course, the general population here is too buddy-buddy to take sides with anyone other than a well-respected member, but I personally am not going to sit back and take it. I'm going to dish what I'm given.
So, instead of attacking me because I have tight finances, why not think a little more logically and realize we ALL have tight finances. That does NOT mean that I CAN'T provide the available treatments for my animals, nor does it give any of you any right to attack me for it. If I couldn't support my animals, I'd not have allowed them to be given to us. There's no shame in asking for cheaper prices.
So, everyone hop off their pedestals, chill with the "me too" brown-nosing crap and open your eyes. There's more to stories than what you WANT to believe, or what makes a good dramatical discussion topic.
-
what???/ I said nothing about animal crulety.... if you are thinking that you saved that poor animal from death or what ever... just becasue you adopted it, and can not afford a freaking lightbill.... trust me YOU DID NOT DO ANY OF US A FVAOR... you should have left the pet where it was and gave it a chance for someone else to adopt it...
Do not pull that card on me... it is better to leave them where they are, rather to adopt them, and get them use to love and compassion and then have to give them back or drop them off on a road side somewhere
Apparently you missed the "joke". Go do something constructive like, I dunno, learning to understand sarcasm.
-
Animal cruelty is no better, so let's stop beating a dead horse.
-
Seriously?! Yeah, take them back so that they probably WONT be adopted considering over eighty cast in 1 week died. Just because he didn't want to pay those outrageous vet fees and was shopping around...take them back and let them die. That makes alot of sense!
The real voice of reason.
Seems the people in this thread have little more in life to live for than to verbally attack people like me who are simply looking for ways to save a bit of money on our pet care. There's such a huge difference between "not having the money" and "not wanting to pay outrageously for pet care when it can be done cheaper". My IQ has dropped significantly since the first post Bwitchy made. Before long I won't even be able to construct complete senten
Oh crap. It's happening.
-
I have never cared how old you until this thread but seeing that you just will not post your age in here tells me a whole lot.
I did post my age in this thread. Go look back. Stop being blatantly stupid; it's not helping the overall IQ display in this thread.
-
You may not think that your posting of things sounded desperate but it did to me and obviously to others.
Bewitchy is right IMHO.
Would you mind if I asked your age?
Pay attention to the rest of the thread and you'll take note that I already mentioned it. Check out my profile too. Seems your maturity level would lead you to realize how easy it is to find these things out.
Oh, and Bwitchy, that was a cute reply, honestly. Generic insults always make things more interesting. You have a great evening too, "dear".
-
Here you clearly say that you cannot afford vet care. Not really sure why you thought it was a good idea to take on 2 new animals that are going to require it. Seems to me that you are just ill that you got called on an irresponsible decision.
I think I make my posts a little too blunt and people like you and Bwitchy enjoy taking them to the extreme. You forget that this was before my mother offered to pay for the actual kittens ($140 up front WOULD have cut us too short). Perhaps next time I'll put it more like this:
"I can afford vet care, but it's outrageous. The animal shelter makes us pay $70 to purchase animals from them, or else they eventually kill them, when they could have given them to a loving home (really glad to see them care so much). So, if anyone knows of a place I could get a kitten and afford it for less than $2000, I'd be grateful. Thank you!"
Baby wipes + cats?
in Archive of Four Legged Friendzy
Posted
Well, he just has a tendency to step his back paw in it sometimes. It's usually not REAL bad, but it's rather gross and surely unsanitary for the rest of the house.