- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 128
In the middle of all the admissions threads. I have a simple question what is your opinion of FIV+ cats?
FIV + Cats
- Thread starter WelshCob
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 18,953
- Reaction score
- 11,356
My mom has one... he's lived quite a while. He's around cats that are uninfected, which I don't approve of, but there's not much to do about it now.
What specifically are you asking about? And why FIV and not FeLV, since the latter is the more contagious one?
What specifically are you asking about? And why FIV and not FeLV, since the latter is the more contagious one?
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 128
Has to do with a cat at my clinic today. Just wanted to get opinions before explaining further. I feel the doctor made the virus much worse then it was to the owners who clearly loved the cat. They elected to euthanize the cat.The cat was young and the doctor seemed to get very upset when I suggested/tried to find the cat a home.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,707
- Reaction score
- 899
Cats with FIV can live a long, happy life. We adopt out cats from the shelter I volunteer at with FIV and most go on to live full, happy lives. I think the rate of transmission (even with a serious bite from one cat to another) is very low (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think I would personally have a FIV + cat with an FIV - cat, but I don't see why people can't. FeLV is much more of a risk from one cat to another than FIV.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2010
- Messages
- 10,690
- Reaction score
- 1,575
While FIV+ cats can live long normal lives, there are complications that can arise even in young cats. I don't know what the vet did to make it worse, but stress can really affect them. It lowers an already "fragile" immune system. I guess I can't comment further without knowing the details of this particular case. I wouldn't house an FIV+ with other non-infected cats, but that's just me.
Ugh, that makes me so angry. Yes, there can be complications, but I have a few friends with FIV+ cats who are otherwise healthy and leading happy LONG lives. None of them are with non-infected cats.
Oh hey, you're kid has a contagious disease that might result in complications - you should probs put him down.
Sorry - I just get really angry when owners/vets elect an unnecessary euthanasia. I don't think people should have pets unless they are completely vested in them and are willing to put the time/effort/care/money that is needed.
Oh hey, you're kid has a contagious disease that might result in complications - you should probs put him down.
Sorry - I just get really angry when owners/vets elect an unnecessary euthanasia. I don't think people should have pets unless they are completely vested in them and are willing to put the time/effort/care/money that is needed.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,032
- Reaction score
- 207
There's not much we can really say without knowing the situation (was the cat sick? was it a screening test on a healthy cat? what tests were used for diagnosis? was it a newly adopted pet? are there other cats in the home? does the cat go outdoors? do the owners have the finances to treat complications? is the cat suffering right now?).
In this case the decision for euthanasia was made between the owners and the vet and I can see how the vet would find it inappropriate for a person shadowing or even a vet tech to try to get involved.
To the person who is angry about it (not the OP) I don't think it's fair for you to judge without knowing the situation. For all you know these people just adopted the cat and they have several other cats that they don't want to infect. Or this FIV+ cat is having complications that are compromising its quality of life. Or it is one of those cats that won't tolerate being indoor-only and they don't want it to spread the disease. Or all of the above.
One thing you will have to accept as a vet is that owners don't always make the choices you would make. And that veterinary ethics are not the same as human medical ethics.
In this case the decision for euthanasia was made between the owners and the vet and I can see how the vet would find it inappropriate for a person shadowing or even a vet tech to try to get involved.
To the person who is angry about it (not the OP) I don't think it's fair for you to judge without knowing the situation. For all you know these people just adopted the cat and they have several other cats that they don't want to infect. Or this FIV+ cat is having complications that are compromising its quality of life. Or it is one of those cats that won't tolerate being indoor-only and they don't want it to spread the disease. Or all of the above.
One thing you will have to accept as a vet is that owners don't always make the choices you would make. And that veterinary ethics are not the same as human medical ethics.
If there are other complications the OP isn't mentioning, then yes euthanasia may have been the right choice. But if it's a new cat, or there are others, there are always other options such as re-homing the animal.
I think it's disturbing how many people find veterinary ethics to be different than for people. And I'm allowed to have that opinion. There may be differences, but I'm allowed to be disgusted that euthanasia is an option for people who can't afford or bother with care.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,629
- Reaction score
- 1,994
So what do you prefer? Long, slow, agonizing deaths? Watching animals die painfully? Owners setting their animals "free" in the wild when they can't persue treatment, and euthanasia isn't an option? Euthanasia is a HUGE part of veterinary medicine. It may not be a preferable option, but regardless of that, it is one. Who are you to say that someone choosing euthanasia is wrong? There people out there who can't afford to feed their kids right now... should they have gotten rid of all their animals the instant money got tight or the day they lost their job?
If that's your attitude, have fun in vet school. Financials are a huge part of everything, and unless you plan on personally bankrolling every case you see, chances are, you'll be faced with a euthanasia for financial reasons sooner rather than later.
Oh please. Don't make me out to be a bad guy because I would prefer it if owners had the money to treat their animals. And l believe I already said that I'm not against euthanasia, but from the details I have from this specific instance - why couldn't they at least try to re-home the cat?
Yes, the economy is bad and tough decisions have to be made, but let's not pretend that a lot of these decisions aren't owners that don't try at all. AGAIN, from the details given, IN THIS INSTANCE I don't understand why owners would choose to euthanize a cat they loved instead of at least try to find it a home.
There's really no need for the claws to come out about my opinions. (Haha, did anyone see what I did there?)
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2010
- Messages
- 10,690
- Reaction score
- 1,575
But you aren't given many particulars. You are told that the OP said he THOUGHT that the vet was making it out to be worse than it was without giving us details. We don't know what they bloodwork showed, what condition the cat was in, etc. You can't really say if their decision was "right or wrong" based on what we are given.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction score
- 22
Honestly, unless you are put into that situation as a trained vet, you can't judge or be disgusted by it. Yeah, ok, it's not the best option, but we don't know the whole story.
Some owners choose not to re-home. Like what was said before, the cat might have started to have complications from FIV. Again: we don't know the whole story. We argue about it until our faces turn blue, but the fact of the matter is the owner and the vet decided TOGETHER what the best option would be. Veterinarians are professionals, so we shouldn't put down their professional opinions. We as vet students and vet student hopefuls have NO IDEA what it's going to be like when we are faced with the same situation.
And yes, we see what you did there with the 'claws out' comment, gina85. Most of us have undergraduate, if not graduate degrees. We can see a pun when it's presented to us. No need to rub our faces in it.
Some owners choose not to re-home. Like what was said before, the cat might have started to have complications from FIV. Again: we don't know the whole story. We argue about it until our faces turn blue, but the fact of the matter is the owner and the vet decided TOGETHER what the best option would be. Veterinarians are professionals, so we shouldn't put down their professional opinions. We as vet students and vet student hopefuls have NO IDEA what it's going to be like when we are faced with the same situation.
And yes, we see what you did there with the 'claws out' comment, gina85. Most of us have undergraduate, if not graduate degrees. We can see a pun when it's presented to us. No need to rub our faces in it.
Ok, wow. I can't even poke fun at my own bad puns.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,629
- Reaction score
- 1,994
Oh look. Claws.
Whether or not you know details, it's not your place to judge, it is not your right to get angry, and there is nothing disturbing about giving an animal a painfree, peaceful death. It's one thing to say that YOU wouldn't euthanise an FIV+ cat. Not everyone is capable of dealing with that, and not all cats are candidates for a quick rehoming. If you're going to judge the decisions of loving pet owners and a professional (a future colleague of yours, perhaps?) , do so silently. And for your sake, I hope you are never faced with a situation with your pets that you can't afford to treat.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 18,953
- Reaction score
- 11,356
I'mma stay in the "what are you drinking?" thread, I think.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,923
- Reaction score
- 1
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,109
- Reaction score
- 20,911
... and I hope you [the folks who are so quick to judge a vet or owners based on a few sketchy details] are just as prepared to be judged by other people.
There's going to come a day where you're going to make a decision as a vet that makes a lot of sense when you're in full possession of the details, and people will judge you because they don't have them and don't like what they see from the outside.
Please extend the same professional courtesy that you'd like to be extended to yourself.
Good point. I'm too old for this crap.
from my experience working in a shelter, rehoming is NOT always an easy option. some animals just can't be rehomed and i've seen them spend months miserable and cooped in a run/kennel in the shelter -- not a proper life for a dog or a cat IMHO.
you're not always going to agree with what the client wants, but in the end while the patient receives the care ultimately the owner is the client so you have to balance both what is best for the pet with what the client can reasonably provide/do/pay for. if finances are an issue and the pet is not going to get the care it should receive, i think euthanasia is a perfectly reasonable option, especially if the pet is sick and the chances of it recovering are slim/low even if the owners pay for the care. i think there is a reason why it is called HUMANE euthanasia.
of course, this is just my opinion, FWIW.
you're not always going to agree with what the client wants, but in the end while the patient receives the care ultimately the owner is the client so you have to balance both what is best for the pet with what the client can reasonably provide/do/pay for. if finances are an issue and the pet is not going to get the care it should receive, i think euthanasia is a perfectly reasonable option, especially if the pet is sick and the chances of it recovering are slim/low even if the owners pay for the care. i think there is a reason why it is called HUMANE euthanasia.
of course, this is just my opinion, FWIW.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 5
Ditto both these points.
I know I would have very little chance of successfully rehoming my cat, if the need arose. She takes over a month to adjust to new people just living in our house (and by adjust, I mean, feel confident enough to be in the same room, until that point her eating and toileting routines are massively out of whack) and thats with feliway diffusers and spray, a "safe zone" where that person doesnt go and me and my boyfriend comforting her. Rehoming her without us would be massively traumatic to her. I couldn't do it!
The money thing is a grey area. Yes, there are people who elect to euthanase instead of treat perfectly treatable things, and that makes me angry too, especially when these things are not expensive.
But there is the other extreme too.
I saw a kitten that was crashing in our emergency clinic the other day. it was 8 weeks old, the owners had her 1 day - adopted her from a shelter. She had a heart defect that she would need emergency surgery for, (as she was actively dying), it was going to cost a minimum of $5000 with no good outcome at all guarrenteed. These people chose to euth on financial and humane grounds - they didnt have a lot of money anyway. Do I think these people were irresponsible and horrible? Not at all. It was an extremely traumatic for the owners, they were massively upset but I don't think anyone can criticise them for not spending the money in this case.
In the case of FIV, yes there are lots of cats that live long happy healthy lives. But once you own an FIV+ cat, you need to accept that sooner or later, there WILL be expensive vet bills. These owners might have actually been extremely responsible - knowing they might not have the financial security, and euthing before their cat had to suffer. The cat also might have already been suffering signs of systemic illness.
Also, i think it is MASSIVELY irresponsible to own an outdoor FIV cat, or an FIV cat in a multicat household. Inability to change these lifestyles for an FIV+ cat is excellent, extremely responsible grounds for euthanasia, I feel.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 128
I'll give a few few more details but I'd rather not go into full. The cat presented for a laceration it is roughly a 100% outdoor pet and the owners have another outdoor cat and they get into scuffles I believe. The owners routinely bring the cats in for baths in the tub and other things the planned to keep the cat indoors until 100% healed. Client didn't not balk at the estimate for wound repair was well dressed well spoken business man. The cat needed a wound repair and a drain per the vet. The combo test was run as part of the pre surgery screen all other blood work came back normal the cat appeared healthy otherwise no reasons presented to not go through with the surgery. Super friendly makes biscuits if you even just touched him. The owners other cat is coming in today to test it's viral status. I feel both may have FIV. The original cat was euthed yesterday.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 153
See, you left out the most important detail in your original telling of the story....
So this is an outdoor cat, with a known history of fighting with other cats, and the owners are unwilling to keep this cat indoors for the rest of its life? In other words, if this cat goes home with them, it'll be back outdoors infecting their neighbor's cats within a few weeks? And back outdoors, getting more fight wounds, which will eventually become slower to heal in this cat due to immunocompromise?
Euthanasia or rehoming to a more responsible owner are the only ethical options.
I don't know about your area, but around here the only option would be euthanasia. Every single no-kill shelter in my area is full and not accepting cats at the moment. My county shelter euthanizes hundreds of pets every month due to lack of available homes. I do not have the resources at my hospital to serve as an adoption center, especially given that even HEALTHY cats take months to adopt out in this area. Finding a home with no other cats and an owner who's willing to take on the future expense of treating FIV? Tried it when I was a naive new grad, but it's nearly impossible.
(I do have one recent FIV story with a happy ending. Client with multiple cats brought in her newest family member, who tested positive for FIV. She had been keeping it separated from her other cats and was debating if/how she could continue to do so... when somehow she managed to convince her mother-in-law, an elderly woman who HATES cats, that this would be a suitable companion for her in her old age if the daughter-in-law continued to pay for all vet care. Win-win. But very uncommon!)
So this is an outdoor cat, with a known history of fighting with other cats, and the owners are unwilling to keep this cat indoors for the rest of its life? In other words, if this cat goes home with them, it'll be back outdoors infecting their neighbor's cats within a few weeks? And back outdoors, getting more fight wounds, which will eventually become slower to heal in this cat due to immunocompromise?
Euthanasia or rehoming to a more responsible owner are the only ethical options.
I don't know about your area, but around here the only option would be euthanasia. Every single no-kill shelter in my area is full and not accepting cats at the moment. My county shelter euthanizes hundreds of pets every month due to lack of available homes. I do not have the resources at my hospital to serve as an adoption center, especially given that even HEALTHY cats take months to adopt out in this area. Finding a home with no other cats and an owner who's willing to take on the future expense of treating FIV? Tried it when I was a naive new grad, but it's nearly impossible.
(I do have one recent FIV story with a happy ending. Client with multiple cats brought in her newest family member, who tested positive for FIV. She had been keeping it separated from her other cats and was debating if/how she could continue to do so... when somehow she managed to convince her mother-in-law, an elderly woman who HATES cats, that this would be a suitable companion for her in her old age if the daughter-in-law continued to pay for all vet care. Win-win. But very uncommon!)
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 128
I didn't want to give out details and just wanted this to be an intelligent discussion on FIV + cats. However, due to the turn of events I gave out more details. If the owners weren't willing to keep kitty indoors I agree with the option of rehoming or euthanasia. The way I heard it presented to owners is not how I would have presented FIV to a client. I think if it would have been presented different the cat would have been kept inside, The euthanasia isn't, however, what I wanted to discuss but the perception of FIV cats in general.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 5
To be honest, you mentioned that BOTH cats were 100% outdoor. In my experience, you are essentially never going to convince an owner which has 100% outdoor cats to keep a cat 100% inside, and segregated from other cats.
And I agree with chickenlittle. Trying to rehome an FIV cat is like trying to fly to the moon using your arms. You get lucky occasionally - but there are thousands of perfectly healthy animals going without homes.
I will admit im a little bit drunk, so sorry if this isnt the most coherent post. I have nothing against FIV+ cats - if my cat was FIV+, it would not affect me in the slightest. But I am very lucky - I work at a clinic where I get cost price and procedures for free, she is an only cat and always will be, and she is strictly indoors only. But finances and living conditions are of extreme importance when dealing with FIV+ cats, you can't just say "many FIV+ cats live long and happy lives". Yes they CAN but its not that simple. And presenting it to an owner like that is irresponsible and unfair. You have to actually tell them the truth - this IS a terminal disease, it PROBABLY WILL cost you a lot of money, you DO need to be prepared to make lifestyle adjustments. Because that is the truth - glossing over these points is lying.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,707
- Reaction score
- 899
Of course it's not that simple. I was responding to a post when the OP was asking about FIV + cats. There were no other caveats included, so I mentioned that FIV+ cats can live a long time without any symptoms. Money is always a factor, as is the (in)ability to rehome FIV+ cats. I will mention, though, that at my shelter, we do successfully send home FIV+ cats quite frequently. They are definitely a tougher sell than FIV- cats, for sure, but that doesn't mean they don't find homes.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 5
Sorry I wasn't responding to you directly, sorry if it sounded like I was! I meant far more in general
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,707
- Reaction score
- 899
Sorry I wasn't responding to you directly, sorry if it sounded like I was! I meant far more in general
Ah, no probs
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,032
- Reaction score
- 207
Sunnex - thanks for bringing up how difficult it is to rehome. In Philly alone they are putting to sleep around 20,000 cats a year - most of which are young, healthy (aside from URI / ringworm), and friendly. When you spend enough time seeing this in a shelter, you wonder why, when there is such a lack of homes for healthy adoptable cats, would you try to rehome a cat with a known fatal contagious disease, with a history of inter-cat aggression, with owners that already have gone through the (awful) process of choosing euthanasia?
As far as the indoor / outdoor thing: It's one thing to have a cat that is mainly indoors, and put a stop to their occasional jaunts around the backyard. It's another to have a cat that has been outdoors its whole life and all of a sudden expect it to live indoors all the time. It's possible, but it's likely to come with a difficult adjustment period - and many people will not be willing to do it. Where I live there are strays everywhere. Lots of people will "adopt" strays in the sense that they feed them, take them to the vet if they get hurt, let them in the garage during snowstorms... but for whatever valid reason continue to let the cat live outdoors. This is a common type of "ownership" around here and things are a little different when it comes to how much money you would be able to spend at the vet or how much medical care they can administer (does the cat show up every day? will it go crazy if forced indoors? can you put a pill down its throat?). I think the level of responsibility that comes with "poor cat on the street, I'll help you out where I can" versus "I went and got this animal on purpose" is different.
Point is, there are lots of different relationships that people have with their animals and it's not something where you can put your values on someone else. Even within my own animals I have differences. One rabbit, I adopted (on purpose) and love with my whole heart. He is so well behaved, social, snuggly, and friendly. It was one of those things where I saw him at the shelter and was like "that's my rabbit." I would do anything for him. My other rabbit I ended up with by accident to get her out of a bad situation. She's a holy terror, throws poop everywhere for fun, extremely difficult to handle, and very stressed by any kind of veterinary care. I give her a great life - high quality food, a huge living space, treats, attention, vet care by an expensive but excellent vet - but would I go as far with her medically as my first rabbit? No - in great part because she is easily stressed and her quality of life would be ruined by constant handling - but partly because it's just a different relationship, and that's something that I as an owner have a right to decide.
As far as the indoor / outdoor thing: It's one thing to have a cat that is mainly indoors, and put a stop to their occasional jaunts around the backyard. It's another to have a cat that has been outdoors its whole life and all of a sudden expect it to live indoors all the time. It's possible, but it's likely to come with a difficult adjustment period - and many people will not be willing to do it. Where I live there are strays everywhere. Lots of people will "adopt" strays in the sense that they feed them, take them to the vet if they get hurt, let them in the garage during snowstorms... but for whatever valid reason continue to let the cat live outdoors. This is a common type of "ownership" around here and things are a little different when it comes to how much money you would be able to spend at the vet or how much medical care they can administer (does the cat show up every day? will it go crazy if forced indoors? can you put a pill down its throat?). I think the level of responsibility that comes with "poor cat on the street, I'll help you out where I can" versus "I went and got this animal on purpose" is different.
Point is, there are lots of different relationships that people have with their animals and it's not something where you can put your values on someone else. Even within my own animals I have differences. One rabbit, I adopted (on purpose) and love with my whole heart. He is so well behaved, social, snuggly, and friendly. It was one of those things where I saw him at the shelter and was like "that's my rabbit." I would do anything for him. My other rabbit I ended up with by accident to get her out of a bad situation. She's a holy terror, throws poop everywhere for fun, extremely difficult to handle, and very stressed by any kind of veterinary care. I give her a great life - high quality food, a huge living space, treats, attention, vet care by an expensive but excellent vet - but would I go as far with her medically as my first rabbit? No - in great part because she is easily stressed and her quality of life would be ruined by constant handling - but partly because it's just a different relationship, and that's something that I as an owner have a right to decide.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 24,118
- Reaction score
- 8,863
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,032
- Reaction score
- 207
I got my number wrong, it's more like 10,000. Not that it's not awful too...
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 5,160
+10000
I think this is really important for anyone who wants to go into vet med should take to heart. Sometimes it's really heartbreaking to see, but it is what it is. If anyone walks into a clinic with their animal, they care enough about that animal to seek your advice. Client education is important, but I think it's also important to work within the boundaries of the client's frame of reference to come up with the best plan for both the animal AND the client. If that's a client who sees cats as animals who live outdoors, then a lot of times that's what you have to work with. In the case presented, I would certainly say something along the lines of "A cat with FIV may live a long time without much complications, but the cat NEEDS to be kept strictly indoors and only with other FIV+ cats" and see how the owners respond to that. But unless they seem 100% committed to that, I see absolutely no need to sugar coat anything. I wouldn't want them to leave my clinic thinking "wow doc said some cats can live 5-10 yrs with this dz, and that is a long time for a cat. I'ma let him keep going as is and maybe we'll do something if he gets sick" and allow that cat to go on infecting other animals in the neighborhood.
I do as well, and very similar to bunnity's case but with kitties. I had my one cat that I spoil to death, and would do ANYTHING for. If she'd come out FIV or FeLV positive, I would have kept her as an only cat and would have treated her appropriately until it made more sense for her to be put to sleep.
Then I just randomly ran into this really sweet stray cat that jumped in front of my car... and where I found her, there's really no way to find a home for even the sweetest of healthy cats. Pretty similar to what bunnity described in terms of how cats are "owned" in this area. I tried pretty hard to find a place that would take her and ensure that she had a reasonably good chance of adoption, but no dice. Animal control has a number to call for stray dogs, but they wouldn't even return my call about this cat. So I decided that I would keep her... but I had her separated from my cat until she could get combo tested and such. Had she come out positive for either FIV or FeLV, I would have put her down. She's less than a year old and in perfect health as of now, so I'm sure she could have a happy full life ahead of her even with FIV. That would have sucked for sure, but I don't think I'd be an evil person for making that decision.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,109
- Reaction score
- 20,911
True that. I was doing an exam on a dog and headed into the diet discussion. I led with something normal, like "What do you feed Fifo?" Thought it was safe territory, even though it was a rural setting.
The client looked at me like I was crazy and said: "Feed?! He hunts for his food."
Sometimes you just have to play the hand the client deals you.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 24,118
- Reaction score
- 8,863
Yeah, agreed. Not changing to a smiley face for that number!
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,520
- Reaction score
- 419
My opinion here, though not very popular with coworkers or friends.
If we were more proactive about euthanizing unwanted cats with the disease, or having frank discussions with owners about the absolute necessity of keeping FIV/FeLV indoors, then we *could* decrease the prevalence of the diseases. I am 100% against TNR programs that don't test and euthanize positive cats. If I'm the tech on a case and a stray is brought in, I test it (pay for it out of my pocket) and make sure it is euthanizied if it is positive for either disease. We have so many healthy animals being euthanized, why try to get someone to adopt an unhealthy animal that will only propogate disease. The veterinary community needs to stop being so worried about offending owners when it comes to cats and transmissible diseases. We will flat out tell an owner it is unethical to crop ears or dock tails, but we can't reprimand an owner for allowing their positive cat outside so it can infect all the other cats in the neighborhood.
I have been the technician who has had to hold ~75 cats for euthanasia at the shelter. It is sad and depressing. Only some of those were old/sick... many of them were young, cute, and "healthy." But that is the reality. We want to spend the very small amount of $$ donated to animal shelters every year taking care of the sick ones? I vote no.... I vote we spend that $ to screen for FIV/FeLV in cats and HWD in dogs. Then vaccinate and give flea prevention and HWP. Then, when owners do adopt, they don't get a nasty surprise of a health issue. It will never be done this way, because people feel sorry for the sick ones and want to give them a chance, but every sick animal taken care of at a shelter takes the place of 2-3 healthy ones, monetarily speaking.
/end soapbox
If we were more proactive about euthanizing unwanted cats with the disease, or having frank discussions with owners about the absolute necessity of keeping FIV/FeLV indoors, then we *could* decrease the prevalence of the diseases. I am 100% against TNR programs that don't test and euthanize positive cats. If I'm the tech on a case and a stray is brought in, I test it (pay for it out of my pocket) and make sure it is euthanizied if it is positive for either disease. We have so many healthy animals being euthanized, why try to get someone to adopt an unhealthy animal that will only propogate disease. The veterinary community needs to stop being so worried about offending owners when it comes to cats and transmissible diseases. We will flat out tell an owner it is unethical to crop ears or dock tails, but we can't reprimand an owner for allowing their positive cat outside so it can infect all the other cats in the neighborhood.
I have been the technician who has had to hold ~75 cats for euthanasia at the shelter. It is sad and depressing. Only some of those were old/sick... many of them were young, cute, and "healthy." But that is the reality. We want to spend the very small amount of $$ donated to animal shelters every year taking care of the sick ones? I vote no.... I vote we spend that $ to screen for FIV/FeLV in cats and HWD in dogs. Then vaccinate and give flea prevention and HWP. Then, when owners do adopt, they don't get a nasty surprise of a health issue. It will never be done this way, because people feel sorry for the sick ones and want to give them a chance, but every sick animal taken care of at a shelter takes the place of 2-3 healthy ones, monetarily speaking.
/end soapbox
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 24,118
- Reaction score
- 8,863
From a completely rational point of view, I agree with you completely.
Unfortunately, the world is driven more by emotion than rationality, and you will often find people more willing to want to help the most hopeless than the run of the mill hopeless. That is why you encounter resistance.
And the horror of putting to sleep one sick kitty can seem worse than euthanizing 200 other healthy ones to people.
It is a screwed up world folks.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,109
- Reaction score
- 20,911
Can you clarify what you mean there? Did you leave out "opposed to" (as in 'I am 100% opposed to TNR programs....')? Or am I just not parsing the sentence right?
If that's what you meant ... I don't get it. The primary point of TNR programs is population control. Managing FIV/FeLV would be an awesome addition to those programs - and I'm with you on feeling like it should be included - but not doing that testing doesn't make a TNR program worthless, because that's not the point of TNR. It would be great to piggyback on a TNR program like you're suggesting, because you'd be attacking two problems with one program, but I don't understand being 100% opposed to TNR programs without it. They're still (in theory) accomplishing their purpose.
Not to disagree with myself... but I do support doing FIV/FeLV testing. I wonder if it wouldn't even *lower* the cost of TNR programs (by reducing the number of animals you actually end up spaying/neutering, and that cost savings being more than enough to cover the added cost of testing/euth).
Anyway, I feel like your argument is a bit like saying "I'm 100% opposed to canine spays where they don't do hip dysplasia rads at the same time." This isn't meant to be argumentative. I'm trying to suss out what you're saying.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 5,160
I think the difference between the hip dysplasia and FIV/FeLV is that the hip dysplasia animals don't go on to infect all the other animals out in the colony. So allowing positive animals to go back out and infect everyone else isn't very ideal when the purpose of TNR programs is to maintain a colony such that the existing cats can live out their lives without perpetuating the problem. It's debatable how successful many of these programs are in actually meeting their goals (and depends a lot on the individual programs and is really out of the scope of this discussion), but re-releasing FIV/FeLV positive cats definitely would go against the mission of most programs IMO.
It's kind of like, shelters that adopt out animals without spaying/neutering first. Yes, they are helping some animals, but I personally don't think that's the best way to go. That being said, different groups have different amounts of resources, and each group has the right to dole out those resources as they see fit, AND each group has the right to their own mission statements. As long as they're helping to some extent, and they're meeting a need that's not able to be met by any other group (and don't prevent others from doing what might be better), I don't see a problem with whatever they decide to do.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,109
- Reaction score
- 20,911
Right... I get that. But here's the thing: that doesn't make TNR programs ineffective.
Look at it this way. Without TNR programs? Population problems. With TNR programs? Population control. (Assuming TNR programs work, obviously. That's a different discussion.)
FIV/FeLV is an independent problem. I'm not saying it shouldn't/couldn't be addressed as an adjunct part of TNR programs, but I don't think being "100% opposed" to them makes sense purely on the basis of whether they include FIV/FeLV testing, because that's not their primary purpose.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,032
- Reaction score
- 207
The other factor is that reducing numbers of overall cats is reducing the numbers of FIV / FeLV positive cats and therefore should be reducing transmission. Also neutered males may be less likely to fight, and vertical transmission is eliminated if no new kittens are being born.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 5,160
That's exactly why I say it really depends on the mission of the org that is doing the TNR. For some, it's about population control. For others, it's about the cats in the existing colonies, where eliminating FIV/FeLV from the colony as best as possible IS a part of the mission. For most, it's somewhere in between. So I wouldn't necessarily say that decreasing the spread of disease is merely an icing on the cake for many orgs. That's why some use the term TNVR instead, where Vaccinate is emphasized along with the Neuter. (again, there are differences in missions between orgs, but a lot of times the culling of positive animals is a part of that). So really, depending on the org and their mission, not FIV/FeLV testing and then culling positives can either be not a big deal at all... or a blasphemy, or really, anything in between.
I totally agree with you, which is why I say that I have no problem with whatever any org chooses as their policy as long as they are helping. I was just trying to explain where Jamr0ckin was maybe coming from. I'm totally with her with the reasoning behind why she doesn't like it when positive animals are let back out (or not screened at all). But I do agree that she maybe came off a bit too strongly when it came to talking about TNR programs in general. Like with anything else in shelter med, it's usually not a good idea to impose your ideas about what is the "best method" as a one-size-fits-all model across the board.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,109
- Reaction score
- 20,911
Makes sense! Mostly I was curious; I can't say I know much about shelter work or TNR release programs.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,520
- Reaction score
- 419
Yes, I did mean "oppose" and I edited my post to reflect that.
To me, TNR programs come across as wanting to "help" cats and populations. You are doing no favors to the stray cats or owned cats by not screening these cats. I guess saying 100% against is a little strong but it comes from a deep disdain for an organization in my area. They say TNR is their "passion" yet they refuse to test and vaccinate AND they have brainwashed the practice owner into doing them all for free... when they are some of the wealthiest people I know. They show up at our clinic unannounced with a trap full of cats and throw off our whole day, put our staff in danger (crazy, wild feral cats (plural) in one cage = not safe), and then think because THEY are doing a "good deed" then we should as well and not pay for it. It drives me up the wall. Also, I don't believe TNR makes much a dent in the population and by releasing them back out, they are continuing to harm the songbird population. If you *really* want to help, try to socialize and tame the kittens so they are adoptable and euthanize the adults that don't show promise to be able to be adopted into homes. Cats are not wildlife, and its about time we stopped treating them like they belong in the wild.
To me, TNR programs come across as wanting to "help" cats and populations. You are doing no favors to the stray cats or owned cats by not screening these cats. I guess saying 100% against is a little strong but it comes from a deep disdain for an organization in my area. They say TNR is their "passion" yet they refuse to test and vaccinate AND they have brainwashed the practice owner into doing them all for free... when they are some of the wealthiest people I know. They show up at our clinic unannounced with a trap full of cats and throw off our whole day, put our staff in danger (crazy, wild feral cats (plural) in one cage = not safe), and then think because THEY are doing a "good deed" then we should as well and not pay for it. It drives me up the wall. Also, I don't believe TNR makes much a dent in the population and by releasing them back out, they are continuing to harm the songbird population. If you *really* want to help, try to socialize and tame the kittens so they are adoptable and euthanize the adults that don't show promise to be able to be adopted into homes. Cats are not wildlife, and its about time we stopped treating them like they belong in the wild.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,680
- Reaction score
- 0
Jamr0ckin, I think you sound really bitter about one TNR program in particular that you've had to deal with (and it sounds like you recognize this, which is good), but, especially for those reading this with not as much experience with TNR programs, I just want to share that not all TNR orgs are this obnoxious. I volunteer occasionally for a TNR clinic (that only does vx and spay/neuter) run by a humane society, using volunteer vets and charging trappers a small fee per cat. The only time we run FIV/FeLV tests is when the trapper requests in for a kitten that they are hoping to adopt (though the same humane society does FIV/FeLV test for cats that are being adopted out to be barn cats). Despite that though, I just want to make sure that your negative experiences don't turn others off completely regarding people that do TNR--the trappers/transporters that I've met aren't all crazy cat people.
That being said, and not to completely derail the thread or to provoke you, but because I'm honestly curious, what are your feelings on owned, pet cats who are indoor/outdoor cats? Or even outdoor-only cats (such as barn cats) who still interact frequently with people?
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 5
I've got to agree with this. Maybe its not such an issue in the US, but over here, most of our native wildlife is small and ground/tree dwelling. Most of it can be completely decimated by cats. I understand the "trap" bit - I don't understand the "neuter release" bit. I know it might seem harsh to the general public to trap and kill cats, but feral cats can do amazing amounts of damage to the ecosystem in one area.
I'm on the "KILL THE FERALS" bandwagon. Of course, I want them to be killed as humanely as possible (very humane methods arent always avaliable or realistic) but I don't think you should trap them just to release them!
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 5,160
There are a lot of people who are dubious as to the efficacy of TNR programs in terms of eradicating feral cats as a whole. In an isolated colony where you don't have too many newcomers outside of those born within the colony it works. But in most cases you have a whole host of unaltered strays, indoor/outdoor owned, dumped, that continually keep adding to the feral population. In those cases nothing is really going to help the native wildlife. The cats keep replacing themselves even if you continually cull them. So the more realistic goal of many TNR groups is to just maintain a status quo of an established colony so you have fewer newcomers. For these groups it's about having fewer cats (as in lower turnover). I personally don't like whar's happening to wildlife, but I don't see culling as an effective option. It's hard to say if TNR really makes a difference, but it's better than nothing, and can work with smaller isolated populations. If it's legal for cats to keep their cats unaltered and own them as an outdoor cat, culling just won't do much IMO that's gotta change first, and I don't see it happening and endorced
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,520
- Reaction score
- 419
Yeah, I am pretty bitter towards this one group, but have never had what I would call a positive experience with any TNR group I've worked with.
As far as your question about outdoor cats, I don't believe it is the best life style for the cat (exposure to disease, predators, etc). But at the same time, I'm not opposed to them as long as they are vaccinated and tested. I am highly against owned cats that are positive and allowed to continue to go outside. There is an FIV+ cat in my neighborhood. I know this because they bring their cat to my clinic. Despite repeated talks about keeping the cat indoors, they continue to let it outside... and it comes in with cat bite abscesses on a regular basis. It really frustrates me, because someone else's cat may now have FIV because this owner was irresponsible. Barn cats certainly serve a purpose, and I understand that... but these cats especially need vaccines and testing, and the reality is they are the ones least likely to be brought into a clinic unless they've been in a fight (or HBC, etc).
Its a touchy subject for a lot of people, and I know my opinion isn't a popular one, but it is what I offer here for a different perspective. I hope I don't come off hard or cold, because it is out of passion for the animals that I have these opinions.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,680
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think you come off as hard or cold, just very strongly opinionated, but able to defend it, which is fine. Though I may disagree with you some about feral cats, I totally agree with your feelings about pet cats being outdoors (except for barn cats). I have my own cat for the first time, as opposed to the family cat, and she's not going to be going outside because I'm a paranoid cat mom that she'll get herself into a bad situation since I can't control other people's cats who may not be as nice as she is (also, she's incredibly trusting and I could see her being stupid and getting into places she shouldn't be).
The theory I've heard is basically that these cats are living in a particularly space, especially in very urban environments because there is good shelter, food/water availability, etc. and complete removal of a population would just create a vacuum effect where more cats move in in the place of those removed (and it's basically near impossible to keep people from dumping cats for whatever terrible reason--our past three cats have been strays who seemed to have been well accustomed to people at one point). Especially where the unaltered cats are creating a nuisance with spraying/calling/whatnot, it can help reduce the annoyance factor and decrease the chance someone will use less than humane means of dealing with the cats.
