# Pets



## MarkF (16 Sep 2007)

Just got my cat back from the vets today, he's been in a week for a lot of work doing. The final bill was £1213.00

I am looking at him now and "seeing" my dream bike sat there. Now if I had known the cost prior to commencing treatment, I am ashamed to say I honestly don't think I would have gone ahead.

Would you spend £1213 on a pet? He's not even a pedigree one mind, just a common moggy.


----------



## ash68 (16 Sep 2007)

sorry mate would have bought the bike then seen what money was left over for the cat. A bike is for life not just for christmas, sod the cat.


----------



## Cathryn (16 Sep 2007)

You're both nasty bits of work!!! A cat is a darn sight more fabulous than a bike!!! 

Anyway, theres' no excuse for not insuring the cat!


----------



## wafflycat (16 Sep 2007)

Have done!

As far as I'm concerned, when I take a pet on then I take on the responsibility for its health & welfare & if that includes a substantial vet bill, so be it. That's why I've not got zillions of cats - I can afford to look after the number I have, but no more. My three cats are family - just non-human members of the family - and they are my responsibility to look after.

Besides which - my Waffles looked after me when I suffered a long, chronic illness - she hardly left my side. So I returned the favour when she was in need of major medical care.


----------



## ash68 (16 Sep 2007)

yeh,perhaps I was a bit harsh. Could have bought a bike for £1200, Then gone to cat and dog shelter for a new cat. £13 for funeral service for the old cat in the back garden. Best of both worlds,sorted.


----------



## Panter (16 Sep 2007)

ash68 said:


> yeh,perhaps I was a bit harsh. Could have bought a bike for £1200, Then gone to cat and dog shelter for a new cat. £13 for funeral service for the old cat in the back garden. Best of both worlds,sorted.



PMSL 




Seriously, that is a tough call. If my dog was ill then I'd spend what I could to get him well. £1213.00 is a bloody lot of money though

cheers

Chris


----------



## MarkF (16 Sep 2007)

ash68 said:


> yeh,perhaps I was a bit harsh. Could have bought a bike for £1200, Then gone to cat and dog shelter for a new cat. £13 for funeral service for the old cat in the back garden. Best of both worlds,sorted.





It's not as the kids take much notice of him since he's no longer a kitten. Black and white cats are ten a penny, I don't think it would have taken long to get one that looked pretty much the same....................







I knew insurance would be mentioned but after I spent £300 on the bloody thing in the spring I reckoned that he would not have any more "accidents". Not very sensible I grant you, but then I don't wear a helmet either.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (16 Sep 2007)

Our pet Cocker spanial is insured...thankfully. However I would have to say that if he wasn't and it came down to a choice between his life and a new bike the bike would loose. He's one of the family....a bike is just a bit of metal at the end of the day.

...mind you , you said 'cat' right?


----------



## domtyler (16 Sep 2007)

You must be totally off you rocker. £1300 on a stinking cat? It would've been over in two seconds with a spade in the back garden for me and i'd be a lot richer. £1300 on a stinking cat? What the hell is the world coming to?


----------



## Cathryn (16 Sep 2007)

Your cat's VERY cute. You spent the money wisely. But seriously, get him insured. You'll never regret it.


----------



## stevenb (16 Sep 2007)

I love cats....they are part of the family...any pet is....we were lucky with our cat TC....through his 22 years he only required basic servicing....lol....as he was a big strong moggy. I miss him dearly.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (16 Sep 2007)

now you have got me thinking....should i insure the goldfish?


----------



## wafflycat (16 Sep 2007)

well you never know when a great white that's got lost finds its way to your goldfish bowl...


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (16 Sep 2007)

..good point....i'll call fishplan in the morning.


----------



## Abitrary (16 Sep 2007)

Just use strays?


----------



## Abitrary (16 Sep 2007)

domtyler said:


> You must be totally off you rocker. £1300 on a stinking cat? It would've been over in two seconds with a spade in the back garden for me and i'd be a lot richer. £1300 on a stinking cat? What the hell is the world coming to?



A beautiful pet like that will provide more pleasure to a family than you could *ever* realise.

It's not about the money.


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Sep 2007)

Abitrary said:


> A beautiful pet like that will provide more pleasure to a family than you could *ever* realise.
> 
> It's not about the money.


The sort of pleasure worth spending over 1200 quid on is illegal with a cat. He should have drowned it and bought the bike.


----------



## MarkF (16 Sep 2007)

Abitrary said:


> A beautiful pet like that will provide more pleasure to a family than you could *ever* realise.



I hope you are right however I am looking at it right now and I'm not getting any pleasure, in fact, I feel like kicking it. 



Abitrary said:


> It's not about the money.



It is.


----------



## Panter (17 Sep 2007)

Dabbing my eyes with laughing at this thread 




> I hope you are right however I am looking at it right now and I'm not getting any pleasure, in fact, I feel like kicking it.


Hell, don't do that. It'll only cost you a shed load more cash and endanger any upgrade plans to your current steed 


Cheers

Chris


----------



## trustysteed (17 Sep 2007)

for the sake of £7 a month, you had to fork out £1200 and now blame the cat, not yourself. nice one.

when our cat got hit by a car and spent a month in intensive care while they tried to fix him before he sadly had to be put down, the bill would have been £2500 but I only had to pay, yes, £7.


----------



## Fnaar (17 Sep 2007)

Put it down to experience, and take the cat out for a ride on your bike. Very fast. Downhill.


----------



## domtyler (17 Sep 2007)

Bigtallfatbloke said:


> now you have got me thinking....should i insure the goldfish?



A couple of fish round my way walked into chip shop, got into a fight and got severely battered, NO INSURANCE!!


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (17 Sep 2007)

Oh My Cod!


----------



## domtyler (17 Sep 2007)

I know, shame really as they were the life and 'Sole' of the party.


----------



## Cab (17 Sep 2007)

MarkF said:


> Would you spend £1213 on a pet? He's not even a pedigree one mind, just a common moggy.



No. I would't. But she would, and this is why we don't have a cat or a dog. 

We do have a giant African land snail, by the name of Lazarus. Vets bills on snails can't really escalate like that.


----------



## MarkF (17 Sep 2007)

trustysteed said:


> for the sake of £7 a month, you had to fork out £1200 and now blame the cat, not yourself. nice one.
> 
> when our cat got hit by a car and spent a month in intensive care while they tried to fix him before he sadly had to be put down, the bill would have been £2500 but I only had to pay, yes, £7.



What sort of world are we living in when we can afford the time, expertise and money to have freakin scraggy moggy in intensive care for a month?

I am not insuring it, I don't feel like kicking him today but he's had enough out of me, over £1500 this year. I didn't even want the bloody thing but took it off a neighbour with mental health problems who couldn't cope with it, and this is the thanks I get


----------



## domtyler (17 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> No. I would't. But she would, and this is why we don't have a cat or a dog.
> 
> We do have a giant African land snail, by the name of Lazarus. Vets bills on snails can't really escalate like that.



Who's 'She'? The cat's mother?


----------



## ChrisKH (17 Sep 2007)

Cats, Schmats.

I wonder if you can cook 'em?

I've had a few since I was a small child and I have to say I wouldn't have one again if it was my choice. Yes, they can be lovely company and fun and cute so might be worthwhile if I was stuck in the house as a lonely OAP. But they're usually more trouble than they're worth and costly. 

My last two were inherited from sister-in-law who split from boyfriend, went travelling and then moved into a flat which wasn't 'appropriate' for cats due to it being on an main road and we (wife and I) reluctantly agreed to have them. Within 6 months she had another cat and refused to take the other 2 back (I suspect they reminder her of her former boyfriend who was God on earth - but still slept with a workmate - not sure how you do that; she loved him, in-laws loved him even though he had gone on a Shagfest, but that's another story). Divine retribution arrived when aforesaid third cat got run over. Yes, I felt sorry for the cat, but I can't say I didn't smirk at the news.

Moral of the story - is there one? Don't trust your wife's sister (or her boyfriend).


----------



## Cab (17 Sep 2007)

domtyler said:


> Who's 'She'? The cat's mother?



Its short for 'she who must be obeyed'. Rides a blue Raleigh. Nice little mover.


----------



## Big Bren (17 Sep 2007)

I'm afraid in the circumstances described I would have retired to the back garden and performed a very delicate invasive procedure, involving a high velocity interface between the cat's head and a spade.

Having said that, you're daft for not insuring the thing - our cat was insured and on the occasions when he fell ill, they would provide us with a courtesy cat, free of charge. Often it was rather different to our own cat, but it certainly was a big help.

Bren


----------



## Joe24 (17 Sep 2007)

MarkF said:


> Would you spend £1213 on a pet? He's not even a pedigree one mind, just a common moggy.



No
i would have paid the vet £40 and asked him to put it down.
And spend the money i saved on a new bike.
And bought a hamster instead.


----------



## Twenty Inch (17 Sep 2007)

Big Bren said:


> I'm afraid in the circumstances described I would have retired to the back garden and performed a very delicate invasive procedure, involving a high velocity interface between the cat's head and a spade.
> 
> Having said that, you're daft for not insuring the thing - our cat was insured and on the occasions when he fell ill, they would provide us with a courtesy cat, free of charge. Often it was rather different to our own cat, but it certainly was a big help.
> 
> Bren




PMSL 

I've offed a few cats in my time. As wafflycat said, you take the responsibility for them. In my case that's involved a sharp blow to the back of the cat's head with a blunt object.

Spending 1200quid on a cat is obscene. So that it can murder more songbirds? I'd have paid the vet to put it down and given the money to Oxfam.


----------



## rich p (17 Sep 2007)

It's a question of where to draw the line. Even the cat lovers would baulk at, say, £20,000 so it's just a subjective limit based on your own feelings. My limit would be about 12pence but the holier than thou catties would each have their own figure even if they're reluctant to admit it.


----------



## wafflycat (17 Sep 2007)

I've always thought that a person's attitude to an animal in distress speaks volumes about the kind of person he/she is. And what is heard is very, very revealing.


----------



## domtyler (17 Sep 2007)

wafflycat said:


> I've always thought that a person's attitude to an animal in distress speaks volumes about the kind of person he/she is. And what is heard is very, very revealing.



Nah, what people type in internet chat rooms may not be necessarily reflected in real life.


----------



## Twenty Inch (17 Sep 2007)

wafflycat said:


> I've always thought that a person's attitude to an animal in distress speaks volumes about the kind of person he/she is. And what is heard is very, very revealing.




I grew up in the countryside, rearing animals for meat for our own use and for sale. We always took the view that if you were going to eat the animal, you owed it respect and a decent life beforehand. 

Similarly with our pets. If you took the responsibility for the animal, that meant also for a non-suffering death. Sometimes that meant taking it to the vet, sometimes a short sharp blow or a 12-bore cartridge.

I've found abandoned puppies by the side of the road in Spain twice and had to put them down myself as the alternative was a slow death by thirst - not something I could allow to happen. Taking them with me was not an option.

A little while ago a cat turned up outside my neighbours - blind, deaf, walking in circles for 18hours non-stop. The vets were closed and my neighbour was freaking out. I put the cat down.

A few years ago a cat moved in with me and we got on very happily. He got poisoned, I suspect by someone using weedkiller, or by eating a poisoned rat. I thought he was recovering and left him for a weekend but when I came back he was visibly dying. I put him down too.

I don't enjoy it, it's always horrible to have to kill something, but the alternatives in all these cases were worse - a lingering painful death, in order to spare my own feelings.

To my mind, it's more honest than sub-contracting it to a vet.


----------



## ChrisKH (17 Sep 2007)

Jokes aside, I'm sure none of us would cause a cat suffering (except bonj). Despite my misgivings over having a cat now, I wouldn't rule it out in the future. The two I had most recently were a pain in the ass and a pleasure in equal measures. Their antics (such as bringing a squirrel into the house and getting under the floorboards which necessitated me cutting holes in every room on Xmas day) are good memories even if it seemed bad at the time. 

There is a brutal honesty about ending the cat's life yourself as twenty inch says compared to a long lingering death my last cat had with cancer - you can't postpone the inevitible - he hated the vets and on the last trip I knew it would be his last. He knew it too and played his trump card; he died in the waiting room.


----------



## domtyler (17 Sep 2007)

> I could make a comment about vets reducing waiting times by prescribing spades to receptionists.
> 
> But that would be insensitive, so I won't.



Oh go on, I dare you.


----------



## gbb (17 Sep 2007)

wafflycat said:


> I've always thought that a person's attitude to an animal in distress speaks volumes about the kind of person he/she is. And what is heard is very, very revealing.



Surely, if a person makes a judgment to put an already injured or ill animal to sleep, rather than spending god knows how much money, hes still preventing further distress to the animal (just not in the way a cat lover would like it). We have to assume the animals difficulties are an act of nature, beyond our control. Crikey, doctors make that judgement every day on humans...let alone animals.

If by the same token, you walk away and do nothing from an animal in distress, thats a totally different matter....but thats not the case normally.

FWIW, this is like a helmet debate....the divide is virtually of biblical proportions.


----------



## barq (17 Sep 2007)

I'd be less inclined to spend a thousand pounds on my 19 year old cat than my 5 year old one. Sorry I know that's very ageist of me! The other thing I'd have to factor in is how hard the road to recovery is going to be. If it was going to involve considerable suffering for the cat then I would certainly consider asking the vet to put it down. That's not a financial decision, it's just that you can't explain to a cat what's going on and why they are in pain.

I certainly couldn't dispatch a cat with a spade though!  If I were in need of euthanasia myself I'd prefer the overdose of anaesthetic, so I'll extend the same courtesy to my cats when the time comes.


----------



## Cab (17 Sep 2007)

wafflycat said:


> I've always thought that a person's attitude to an animal in distress speaks volumes about the kind of person he/she is. And what is heard is very, very revealing.



Really? I for one wouldn't let an animal suffer. If I can catch hold of a rabbit with myxie then I'll dispatch it, if I have a pet in pain I'll make sure that it doesn't suffer needlessly. I'm compassionate, but I don't value a pets life more highly than, say, livestock.


----------



## MarkF (22 Oct 2008)

Just over a year later and the bleedin mog is back at the vets Started with him being sick last week, then diarrhea over last weekend, seems he has a blockage in his stomach........again. Guess what? As it may be related to his first stomach operation I won't be covered, as of this afternoon I am down another £645.00 with more to come

Taking into account all the stupid repairs and injections he has had in his 2.5 years he is going to be a £2.5K cat.


----------



## Arch (22 Oct 2008)

On the other hand, I can think of a few people on whom spending 2K to keep them alive would be an excessive waste of money....


----------



## mr Mag00 (22 Oct 2008)

*clang!*


----------



## Maz (22 Oct 2008)

MarkF said:


> Just got my cat back from the vets today, he's been in a week for a lot of work doing. The final bill was £1213.00


You must have a lot of money in the kitty!


----------



## gavintc (22 Oct 2008)

Arch said:


> On the other hand, I can think of a few people on whom spending 2K to keep them alive would be an excessive waste of money....



Oh, I loved that comment - had a good laugh and then I started thinking about some people in the office who would benefit from an earlier despatch. Perhaps, we have a whip round.


----------



## MarkF (22 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> You must have a lot of money in the kitty!



Groan Not now I don't. I have been tracking Galaxies on Ebay, have some money (or had) in my Paypal account, maybe next year.......


----------



## Mr Pig (22 Oct 2008)

wafflycat said:


> I've always thought that a person's attitude to an animal in distress speaks volumes about the kind of person he/she is.



I agree. People who'll spend large sums of money on cats, or leave thousands to cat charities in their wills, are major-league f***** up ones! 

People who value the lives of cats more that the lives of humans, or even put them at a similar level, have something deeply wrong with them. They have a warped view of the world and wonky priorities. To be able to look at the human suffering in the world, be in a position to do something about it and instead ignore it and helps cats is perverse. 

You suggest that people who ignore animal suffering are not very nice. What about people who ignore human suffering?


----------



## Night Train (22 Oct 2008)

MarkF said:


> Just got my cat back from the vets today, he's been in a week for a lot of work doing. The final bill was £1213.00
> 
> I am looking at him now and "seeing" my dream bike sat there. Now if I had known the cost prior to commencing treatment, I am ashamed to say I honestly don't think I would have gone ahead.
> 
> Would you spend £1213 on a pet? He's not even a pedigree one mind, just a common moggy.



My cat, Orange, was a rescued feral. He had sixteen years with me and I have just come back from the vets having watched him pass away. His little body was riddled with cancer. I've not asked what the bill is and to be honest I don't care. I would pay whatever it costs and more if it meant that he was able to live a longer and healthy life. Money couldn't help him this time. 
I loved him and I miss him.

No 'thing' is worth more then the unconditional love that pets give.


----------



## longers (22 Oct 2008)

It's like losing a good friend, but you know you did the best for him.


----------



## wafflycat (22 Oct 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I agree. People who'll spend large sums of money on cats, or leave thousands to cat charities in their wills, are major-league f***** up ones!
> 
> People who value the lives of cats more that the lives of humans, or even put them at a similar level, have something deeply wrong with them. They have a warped view of the world and wonky priorities. To be able to look at the human suffering in the world, be in a position to do something about it and instead ignore it and helps cats is perverse.
> 
> You suggest that people who ignore animal suffering are not very nice. What about people who ignore human suffering?



Folk who ignore animal or human suffering are not decent. You don't have to do one and not the other. It can be possible to do both. I see your sense of Christian charity to your fellow creatures of the Lord is at its usual profound level, Mr Pig


----------



## domtyler (22 Oct 2008)

> Having pest *costs*



Freudian slip Waffles?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (22 Oct 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I agree. People who'll spend large sums of money on cats, or leave thousands to cat charities in their wills, are major-league f***** up ones!
> 
> People who value the lives of cats more that the lives of humans, or even put them at a similar level, have something deeply wrong with them. They have a warped view of the world and wonky priorities. To be able to look at the human suffering in the world, be in a position to do something about it and instead ignore it and helps cats is perverse.
> 
> You suggest that people who ignore animal suffering are not very nice. What about people who ignore human suffering?



Who suggested, anywhere, that they would prioritise cats over humans? I'll tell you ... no one. You're trying to start a fight in an empty room, as usual.


----------



## wafflycat (22 Oct 2008)

domtyler said:


> Freudian slip Waffles?



heh! Could be when I refer to Marble, my feral rescue, otherwise fondly known as PsychoCatFromHell


----------



## Mr Pig (22 Oct 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Folk who ignore animal or human suffering are not decent. You don't have to do one and not the other.



But without limitless funds, you do have to choose. I would not spend thousands of pounds saving the life of a cat. In my opinion the life of a cat is not worth it, whereas I would happily give thousands of pounds to help suffering humans. 

In reality many pet owners do spend more on their pets than they do helping suffering people. People also give millions of pounds to animal sanctuaries each year. I help a woman who runs an animal sanctuary sometimes, I go up and fix things for her, put in kitchen units, that sort of thing. However, we only have 'X' amount of money to give away we have to make a choice, and I choose not to give it to the animal sanctuary. Bottom line is that people are more important, so they get the money. The only way you can give to both is by not giving very much to either. 

To be honest though, even if I had a lot of money and could drop a thousand pounds on vet's bills easily, I would not spend that amount of money to save the life of a cat, or a rabbit which is a better example because at least I like them.


----------



## wafflycat (22 Oct 2008)

So much for your love of all of god's creation, Mr Pig...


----------



## domtyler (22 Oct 2008)

People spend many more thousands of pounds on cars.


----------



## MarkF (22 Oct 2008)

Night Train said:


> My cat, Orange, was a rescued feral. He had sixteen years with me and I have just come back from the vets having watched him pass away.



I am sorry to hear this, but he was a lucky cat, you rescued him *and *he had a good run at 16.

TBH I think mine is just an "ill" cat, I've never had an ill cat before, all the previous have lived healthily through to old age with hardly a problem, this one is an accident prone, physical wreck. The thing is, I have 3 small children, they love him to bits, they want him home, I have no choice but to pay


----------



## dantheman (22 Oct 2008)

next time, buy the bike, eat the cat, and with the money you save on buying food, buy another cat


----------



## buggi (22 Oct 2008)

Awww, poor moggy, yes of course she was worth it. i would pay that for my Zero or Taffy. 

i might see if i can get them insured tomorrow tho!


----------



## punkypossum (23 Oct 2008)

Pet insurance is definitely a must - even something simple like a broken leg can end up costing hundreds of pounds - if Eric wasn't insured and it happened to him, I wouldn't be able to afford that, and it wouldn't be fair to put him to sleep for something that would be easily fixable if I had the money. Plus, unfortunately now most vets count on pets being insured, so their fees have gone up and for non-insured owners they have often become totally unaffordable.


----------



## gbb (23 Oct 2008)

punkypossum said:


> Pet insurance is definitely a must - even something simple like a broken leg can end up costing hundreds of pounds - if Eric wasn't insured and it happened to him, I wouldn't be able to afford that, and it wouldn't be fair to put him to sleep for something that would be easily fixable if I had the money.  Plus, unfortunately now most vets count on pets being insured, so their fees have gone up and for non-insured owners they have often become totally unaffordable.



That's so true i reckon...having insurance has allowed vets to charge much higher rates...
That said, perhaps vets bills were always high.
I've always held off getting pet insurance because of this and got away with it for my last 3 dogs. I guess i'm going to have to follow the herd and get insurance for my presently ailing, costly, dog.

Hope all goes well MarkF..


----------



## cisamcgu (23 Oct 2008)

Do I like cats ? No ! 

Do I have a cat ? No !

Would I spend a (not so small) fortune on one in vets bills, if I had responsibility for its welfare ? Yes, without a doubt ! 

If you decide to look after an animal, then you have a responsibility to do that job to the best of your ability, even if that means spending money on it, rather than on a shiney new bike.

Just my opinion of course


Andrew


----------



## Baggy (23 Oct 2008)

Reading through this thread, I'm shocked.

I can't believe you'd _only_ spend £1200 on your dream bike 

Anyway, as long as I thought my pet would have a decent quality of life after treatment I'd pay. Insurance does seem like a good idea though...


----------



## Baggy (23 Oct 2008)

Night Train said:


> My cat, Orange, was a rescued feral. He had sixteen years with me and I have just come back from the vets having watched him pass away. No 'thing' is worth more then the unconditional love that pets give.



 Sorry to hear about Orange.


----------



## Arch (23 Oct 2008)

Yeah, sorry to hear about Orange, NT. I'm sure you gave him the best life you could, and that's what matters.

Mr Pig, I can think of quite a lot of people who've made my life personally miserable at some stage, or done it to other people I know. I can't think of an animal who has. You stick to prioritising humans if it makes you feel better, but don't preach at those of us with different priorities (although as Waffles says, one can try to help both people AND humans)...


----------



## oxbob (23 Oct 2008)

"I can think of quite a lot of people who've made my life personally miserable at some stage, or done it to other people I know. I can't think of an animal who has" I can, that bloody gerbil who attached himself to my index finger and would not let go despite my best pete townsend/windmill impersonation !!, I was 11 then, wouldn't hurt a fly these day's


----------



## swee'pea99 (23 Oct 2008)

I really feel for you Arch. That's a rotten dilemma to find yourself in. I can quite understand you resenting the beast, but given your kids' feelings, I can't see that you have a choice really. As you say, it's the open-endedness of it that makes it so draining...the feeling that you could be throwing good money after bad for years to come. What a nightmare!

The only positive thing I can think of to say is that I think you're giving your kids a good lesson in life. I'm sure they recognise that it's really costing you (I think kids are smarter in those sorts of things than they're generally given credit for), and they'll be getting the message that live and sentient beings matter more than machinery - even if it has wheels. Seems worth a few hundred squids. BUT TWO AND A HALF GRAND AND COUNTING?! yikes.


----------



## Arch (23 Oct 2008)

Um, it's not me with the dillemma....


----------



## MarkF (23 Oct 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Seems worth a few hundred squids. BUT TWO AND A HALF GRAND AND COUNTING?! yikes.[/QUOTE]

But where do you stop? It's too late for me, after the last op I was in for say £1800, so, he's already a solid gold cat, to kill him now writes off my £1800 I hoped then that he would live happily and healthily and give me £1800's worth of pleasure but it's not to be, caught between the sensible option, a sickly pussy and 3 children is not a nice place to be..

BTW The op went well (bleedin good job too because I would have had the same bill alive or dead) and he may be home tomorrow, I'll post a new pic of my £2.5k cat.


----------



## swee'pea99 (23 Oct 2008)

Oops, sorry Arch - also MarkF. 

(PS MarkF He is at least a well pretty pooty.)


----------



## Kovu (23 Oct 2008)

domtyler said:


> You must be totally off you rocker. £1300 on a stinking cat? It would've been over in two seconds with a spade in the back garden for me and i'd be a lot richer. £1300 on a stinking cat? What the hell is the world coming to?



Harsh Dad.

But true.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (23 Oct 2008)

How much does taxidermy cost these days? You could offset the emotional cost of the expired mog by getting him stuffed and spending the rest on either a bike or ending world poverty, whichever took your fancy.

£1300 is too much. If my mutt had a bill like that I'd expect it's an early bath for her or some serious upgrades with gizmos eg cup holders, cameras for eyes, wheels, that sort of shoot.


----------



## gavintc (23 Oct 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> How much does taxidermy cost these days? You could offset the emotional cost of the expired mog by getting him stuffed and spending the rest on either a bike or ending world poverty, whichever took your fancy.
> 
> £1300 is too much. If my mutt had a bill like that I'd expect it's an early bath for her or some serious upgrades with gizmos eg cup holders, cameras for eyes, wheels, that sort of shoot.



I think that is quite funny; taxidermy as a solution. Perhaps make the pet radio controlled.


----------



## dantheman (23 Oct 2008)

gavintc said:


> I think that is quite funny; taxidermy as a solution. Perhaps make the pet radio controlled.



now that would be quality..


----------



## Mr Pig (23 Oct 2008)

gavintc said:


> I think that is quite funny; taxidermy as a solution. Perhaps make the pet radio controlled.



Ahh, but how much would you be prepared to spend on batteries?


----------



## Noodley (23 Oct 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> If my mutt had a bill like that ....



....it would be a duck.


----------



## fossyant (23 Oct 2008)

Glad the op went well - we had a tough year with one of ours a couple of years back...fortunately insured - cost would have been £1.5k..... we even did the --should we carry on..... in the end, removing all the cat's teeth cured the problem - some sort of rare virus - even the vet went on a conference to get more info on it - bit like gingivitus, but alot more stubborn.... she's fine now.... aged 12.....

We pay about £28 for the older two cats (12 years old) and about £11 for the 1 year old..... all are moggies - 2 x silver tabbies, and a ginger and black furry tortie...... all been fairly fit, but just a simple procedure costs a lot.....

Anyway, they are part of the family........ sod off you animal haters......


----------



## Lardyboy (23 Oct 2008)

We had a lovely wired haired jack russell bitch. Great dog, was very friendly, no problem with kids, but she was a bugger for running off in the evening when out on her walk around the fields by my parents and not coming back until the early hours.

Anyhow, she was getting on and she developed heart and liver problems. Took her to the vets, he told us the good news she was treatable. The bad news was the cost of the medication! This was before pet insurance was widely known about. So we had to pay, IIRC, £30 a month on tablets. She was such a good dog I had no problem with the cost, but it was still a lot for such a small dog.

Then we discovered that one of my uncles was taking the same medication, on prescription, and was throwing away unused tablets! It was 4 years before we had to take the dog to the vets again. He thought she'd died!


----------



## buggi (23 Oct 2008)

i think people are horrible to each other and that's why a lot of people choose to leave their money to animal charities. All suffering in the world, whether to humans or animals, is caused by HUMANS. 

we are pretty much detrimental to this world so is it any wonder some people choose to love animals more. i don't think it's that surprising. 

personally, i don't put an animals life above a humans, but if i loved an animal, then i would in all probabality put it before a new bike if i had the cash sitting in the bank already. if i didn't have the cash i would seriously have to weigh up whether i could afford it, but if the cash is already there and my pet needs me then the tug on the heart strings would be no competition for my brain talking sense.


----------



## Fnaar (23 Oct 2008)

I'm a dog person, not a cat person (they make me sneeze and my arms go itchy) but this site makes oi larrrf!
www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com


----------



## Mr Pig (23 Oct 2008)

buggi said:


> I think people are horrible to each other and that's why a lot of people choose to leave their money to animal charities.



I think that's absolutely true. I know, and have known, animal lovers who do love animals more than people and that's an often seen trait. They have trouble relating to, or perhaps seeing the good in, other people. Some of them are virtually reclusive. Oddly, I tend to get on well with people like that as I don't like other people that much either! ;0) I can understand that I should, but people, in the final analysis, just aren't that nice. Including me I should add. 

Animals, however, are not the all loving perfect beings we can make them out to be. Their thought patterns, mental abilities and emotions are vastly lower in function than those of humans. What happens is that we tend to impose thoughts and emotions onto them that they simply do not have. We 'humanise' them, but without the bits we don't want. It's not the fact that they love us unconditionally that we like, they don't do that. It's the fact that they absorb it. 



> All suffering in the world, whether to humans or animals, is caused by HUMANS.



I agree that people are a pollution but again, it's an oversimplification and not true. Lions are pretty good at causing distress and suffering in other animals. We accept this by correctly understanding the limited thought processes of the prey animals, yes they suffer but it was short and they hadn't worried about it beforehand etc. 

However, when it comes to pets, our little affection sponges, such reason goes out of the window. It has to. If we really wanted to alleviate animal suffering we'd get rid of all the cats as each cat removed would save the needless deaths of hundreds of birds, mice and other animals small enough. They'll kill young rabbits you know? They'll kill anything they can, and take pleasure out of dragging out the deaths of their prey. Proper little 'death and suffering' machines.


----------



## Noodley (23 Oct 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> whatever you wrote.



Pig, you think too much. Just let and let live, and all that. Sometimes there is no need to say anything other than 'sorry to hear that' or nothing at all...


----------



## Rolling Thunder (23 Oct 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> needless deaths of hundreds of birds



 If we save the birds they'll eat all the worms! And then what would we fish with..... it doesn't bear thinking about to be honest.


----------



## Baggy (23 Oct 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> If we really wanted to alleviate animal suffering we'd get rid of all the cats as each cat removed would save the needless deaths of hundreds of birds, mice and other animals small enough. They'll kill young rabbits you know? They'll kill anything they can, and take pleasure out of dragging out the deaths of their prey. Proper little 'death and suffering' machines.


Good idea, let's have a campaign to eliminate all animals that kill other animals 

Oh, and wot Noodley said...


----------



## wafflycat (24 Oct 2008)

And as the biggest killer of other forms of life is Man, due to eating meat, destroying habitats etc., etc perhaps Mr Pig would like to practice what he preaches and offer himself up as being first for the chop?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Oct 2008)

what kind of chop are we talking about?


----------



## wafflycat (24 Oct 2008)

Dunno. I think a Mr Pig chop is likely to be bitter, so perhaps long, slow cooking with plenty of herbs & spices for flavouring?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Oct 2008)

yum. Only now has the irony of a forummer named "Mr Pig" arguing that humans are more precious than animals struck me.

I wonder how much it would cost to stuff and then fit radio-controls to a deceased pet. Surely less than £1300.


----------



## Mr Pig (24 Oct 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I wonder how much it would cost to stuff and then fit radio-controls to a deceased pet. Surely less than £1300.



Depends if you want to upgrade your cat to include flying ;0)


----------



## Arch (24 Oct 2008)

I'm afraid decent taxidermy might be quite expensive. It's not a simple process and a decent taxidermist takes great pride in making their work look natural.

Mr Pig, your remark about the intelligence of animals is a bit wide of the mark. The average horse has about the same IQ as a three year old human child. If you regard that as 'vastly lower', I hope you don't deal with children at all...


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Oct 2008)

Is that an average 3 yr old horse? Can they talk? Or write?


----------



## Arch (24 Oct 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Is that an average 3 yr old horse? Can they talk? Or write?



An average grown up horse, and three year old human. Horses can't talk, no, because only humans have the larynx arrangement that allows it. And hooves make it tricky to hold a pen. But in terms of general level of intelligence, that are about the same. Hence a horse has enough wit to know it's own will sometimes and be an awkward sod, but not enough wit to be immune to irrational fears. Once you've dealt with a horse, the similarity to a toddler makes sense...


----------



## Stan (24 Oct 2008)

Arch said:


> I'm afraid decent taxidermy might be quite expensive. It's not a simple process and a decent taxidermist takes great pride in making their work look natural.



Just like this one did.........


----------



## Arch (24 Oct 2008)

Stan said:


> Just like this one did.........






That clip must be fairly old though. Or that person wasn't a member of the Guild. Yes, they have a Guild, I know, because I went to their conference a couple of years back, and all the work there was really top stuff.... The trouble they took over getting feather to lie right, or posture correct, was amazing.


----------



## Mr Pig (24 Oct 2008)

Arch said:


> The trouble they took over getting feather to lie right, or posture correct, was amazing.



I've seen their work and it is stunning, so perfect it's hard to believe it's possible.


----------



## MarkF (28 Oct 2008)

Picked up cat Friday and the good news is it wasn't £645..........it was £698 It didn't look right, back to the vet Saturday morning, he had cat flue.

The insurers said it was a "related" illness, probably brought on by the stress of the operation, which was related to the first operation so.....you can guess the rest

Picked him up tonight after paying another £315, money doesn't matter anymore


----------



## Tetedelacourse (28 Oct 2008)

I feel sick just reading that. MarkF you have my deepest sympathies.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (28 Oct 2008)

MarkF said:


> Picked up cat Friday and the good news is it wasn't £645..........it was £698 It didn't look right, back to the vet Saturday morning, *he had cat flue*.
> 
> The insurers said it was a "related" illness, probably brought on by the stress of the operation, which was related to the first operation so.....you can guess the rest
> 
> Picked him up tonight after paying another £315, money doesn't matter anymore



Is your veterinary surgeon Corgi registered then?

Ouch, you have to have really deep pockets sometimes when you've got pets.


----------



## Kempstonian (27 Sep 2020)

I had to laugh...


----------



## Kempstonian (27 Sep 2020)

Anyone want a FREE bird?


----------



## smokeysmoo (27 Sep 2020)

Not insuring a pet is fine if you have the disposable mullah to deal with anything that happens, and without grumbling about it.

If insurance doesn't appeal a savings plan to cover future bills is another option, but you know all this already.

Our dogs insured, and like any insurance policy it's like placing a bet, and after 2 cruciate ligament ops we certainly feel like winners with our lad.


----------

