Category: Animal House
I don't know if anyone here has heard Kodak's story yet. i came across it while reading Gwen Cooper's blog. Kodak was a blind cat who had been found and brought to an animal shelter. The staff there weren't qualified to handle a blind cat and didn't know how to calm him. He became agressive out of fear shortly after arriving there. I imagine all the strange sounds, noises and people touching him didn't help either. Sadly, instead of giving him some time and getting someone to come in who knew how to handle blind cats, they put him down. I honestly believe if they would have given him space and had someone there who could help him calm down, they would have seen his true personality come out. Several people in the community were outraged as well as around the world. In fact, there were many people lined up to volunteer to take him in as a foster cat. I honestly think his death could have been prevented. Shelters should have classes on how to handle special needs animals. Maybe Kodak's story will show them that such classes are necessary. What do the rest of you think?
That's sad that they euthanized him just because they (at the shelter) didn't know what else to do. That's too bad they either couldn't or wouldn't let someone adopt him who might've been better able to care for him. I always feel sad when I hear about an animal being euthanized unnecessarily. If blindness was his only major thing, it wasn't like he had a fatal illness or life-threatening injury. I agree that there should be some kind of training for shelter staff/volunteers to have for caring for/understanding disabled/special needs animals so that some euthanizations can be avoided, at least for the reason of shelter workers not understanding an animal who is disabled/special needs.
I'm sorry, its one cat. The household cat is one of the most pervasive species in the world today. It destroys entire populations of animals, ruins ecosystems and infrastructure, and overruns our cities. My heart isn't shattered by one blind cat getting put down, when there are billions of cats left out there doing horrendous damage to the environmen.
You want to train people? Train cat owners how to keep their cats from becoming hazzards to the rest of society. That would be a lot more useful than training for special needs cats. I can't believe there even is a word for special needs cats. Its a cat. In the wild, if it were blind, it would be food, not special needs.
I don't agree with anything u just said. A loose tiger or mountain lion does more damage than a domestic cat. Every life created by God is precious. The point is, Kodak could have lived a full life if he had been given the chance with the right person. There should be classes for staff at animal shelters to take to learn how to take care of special needs cats and dogs. Kodak's life mattered and his death could have been prevented if such measures had been put in place long before his arrival.
Really? So maggots and flies are precious? Mosquitoes? Parasitic worms? I could go on, but you get the point I'm sure.
No. But they all have a place here. And you're suggestion that Kodak wasn't worth saving was untrue.
You just contradicted yourself.
How so?
You said every life created by god is precious, and then turned around and said the examples I gave are not.
+ No, his life didn't matter. It matters to you, but it didn't matter. If you'd never read the new story, your life would not have changed in the slightest. ERgo, his life did not matter.
And the whole thing about mountain lions, no, those do very very little damage. House cats, however, are very armful, because there are hundreds of millions of them. For an example, one house cat, just one little cat, made an entire bird population go extinct on an island near Australia. Mountain lions have never made anything go extinct as far as I know.
There are programs to try and catch ferile cats so they don't breed, because they ruin cities. There are no programs to capture ferile mountain llions, in fact much the oppostie.
Its fine that you think he's cute, and even that you think he's special; misguided though that belief might be. It doesn't change the factthat he is just a cat and not worth much in the long run.
As for Gd. God didn't create cats to be pets. He made them predators for a reason. So for you to say that his life should have been spared, or to kep one as a pet in the first place, is changing the natural plan of things as set down by God. Your argument really isn't sound. He's just a cat
Imprecator, it's like the PETa people. Only the cute, furry things are precious. And don't you forget it either. lol.
Seriously kidlets, let me tell you something: there are far fewer loose tigers than there are feral cats. And cats have desecrated local songbird populations. Songbirds don't just sing nice songs: They feed heavily on weed seeds, flies, and other pests. They even pollinate.
We have humans going hungry in America, and we're worried about a blind cat being safely euthanized? We're not talking being torn apart by a dog, picked up by an eagle, carried off still alive, to be set down on a crag, torn apart still alive, and eaten. We're talking something akin to a massive dose of sodium pentathol.
Let's have all the people who want to save the blind cats front the money for the special needs shelters and the like, to compensate for all of this.
We've got blind kids who aren't getting an education, blind adults who can't afford to get a Braille display so they can work, and we have blinded veterans who had an improvised explosive device cause concussion injuries to their brains and eys. And we're talking about ... what? Oh, let me get a magnifier for this one: a ... blind cat?
Nobody whistles and whines at reports of birds whose eyes were put out by debris in an industrialized environment, and who were picked up and played with for a few hours by a domestic cat before they died of shock.
Hmm, all life is precious? I'm too much the pragmatist to really see clearly on that one. Nature is a Bitch. They call it Mother Nature because it can go from a sunny disposition to a foul mood in seconds flat.
All I'm saying is Kodak has as much right to a full life as any other animal in that shelter. And they should have had the staff available to help him get it. There were several people willing to foster him before he was killed.
thank you, leo and Cody.
to the original poster, if you're so sad about this one cat's life being taken, do you plan to give any of your hard earned money to shelters to "save" cats in the future? or, do you not work, so made this post in hopes others would share your sentiments? either way, how pathetic.
Yes, he had just as muh right to live as the rest of the animals did. That is to say, absolutely none. There is no right to life. Humans have one because we gave it to ourselves. True, we said it was mandated by some invisible dictator with his happy ass plopped on a cloud so we'd feel good about ourselves, but its still totally arbitrary. Humans still only care about the deaths they hear about. For example, in the few seconds it takes me to right this post, hundreds of people died across the globe. Why aren't you sobbing and writing heartbreaking posts about any of them? Because they weren't cute and fuzzy, you didn't know about them, and until I told you, you didn't care one single bit. In all actuality, you still don't. What you call caring is actually just pity to make yourself feel good about yourself for being what is arbitrarily called a good person.
There is no right to life. There is a right to fight for one's existence. I don't think living a life of blindness, with no hope of having anything that could make you useful again is not fighting for your existence. Until they invent cat braille, he'll be useless for the rest of his life. The vast majority of the other animals will also be useless. They'll take up cage space for years until they finally die of old age, and while they die there will be thousands more waiting to take up their space. Give them the dignity of a painless death rather than a useless life. Make them into glue and pretty handbags so we can feel they served a purpose.
That's your opinion Siver lightening and you are, for what it's worth, entitled to it.
I agree with the OP; It's absolutely disgusting that this cat was killed just because they couldn't deal with, as you put it, a special needs cat.
no, actually, it's disgusting that people are advocating the right to life.
I'm a little lost here as to how the two are different. Would someone please ellaborate some?
I'm currently doing some research when I have the time about the "rite to life", because I believe there was a part of the US Bill of Rites that says something about the rite to life, liberty, and property, but I don't currently know enough to have a firm standing on that issue.
No, the bill of rights say nothing about that. It says you have a right to free speech, religion, the right to bear arms, and about eight or so other rights. the passage you're thinking of is in the declaration of independence, which is not a lawful document. People think that there is law in the declaration of independence, there isn't. It is basically a letter to the king saying "hey, remember how we were your colonies, well we're not anymore, and here's why."
The passage you are thinking of is, "We hold these truthes to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by there creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Its not a law. There is no law saying you have a right to life. It was a belief of the founding fathers that you did, but it was also a belief of the founding father's that if you have a cold you should slit your wrist to balance your humors.
But, either way, that is a side argument because we're not talking about a human, we're talking about a cat. One cat. Tell me, at what point does the right to life end? Do we have to keep every cat alive until they die of natural causes? If a cat is hit by a car, did the car violate its basic right to life? Should you spay and nuder cats to keep them from reproducing? After all, the purpose of life is to reproduce and prosper, and we are preventing that from happening. So doesn't that violate their right to life? And cats are meant to be wild. Aren't we violating their right to live independenly by keeping them as pets? And part of life is to die, so in preventing the cat from dying, are we not violating his right to life?
seriously, I don't think people think about what a right to life actually means. They just see that something died or was killed and go, "That's sad, I need to be sad about it, look at how sad I am." When really, its not all that sad. That cat would never live a normal life again. He'd never be able to run, or jump off a counter, or any of the things cats love to do. And you want to keep him alive simply because he's cute and you don't like the idea of him dying? Please, give me one good reason that we should have let that cat live, one other than the fact that he existed, because I already ripped that to shreds.
Gotchya. I was more so curious as to where I heard that from. I also disagree that the cat should have lived, suffered, and made the people around it suffer as well. It annoys me when people say animals should be kept alive when it's clear they are suffering and there is something wrong. Personally if I was in a serious accident and went in to a deep coma with no guarantees of living, I'd hope that whoever was left in charge of my medical decisions pulled the plug and ended it, instead of making me suffer through something I shouldn't, and making the doctors and nurses watch me die slowly and miserably.
I'd also like to remind you all that cats, and many animals, are far different from humans in the sense that they can not communicate their emotions with us directly. Sure, you can tell if an animal is scared, hungry, angry, etc. But true communication is a two way street. Cats do not understand English or any other language obviously, and they do not have the intellegence that dogs do. If you tell a cat no, it won't listen. If it is a depressed cat, chances are it'll stay depressed and snappy for the rest of its life. I had a neighbor who had a cat that despised being pet by anyone, including her, and guess what? It was farrel. Honestly, if cats were to go extinct tomorrow, it wouldn't affect me directly. It would not change my day-to-day cycles at all.
Hi,
I don't really know what to think. I can see both sides to this. On one hand, I agree that there are too many cats out there who don't have homes and they can, and do, destroy things. A lot of people are not responsible and don't get their cats fixed in the first place and then there are wild cats, too, who don't get fixed and just multiply. I also believe that a cat's life, just like a humans', has value. I think that efforts could have been taken to possibly save the cat, especially if, as the OP says, they had lots of people lined up to take it. I think, if the cat could have been possibly placed in a loving home rather than being killed simply because of its blindness, why not give it a try? If they had tried and it wasn't working, that's a different story. I agree there are some cats who are depressed throuout their lives and consequently, are mean as a result. If things have been tried and the cat is still intolerable, I don't see much choice at that point, but to put it down.
I don't agree, however, with people like silver lightning, who say that it's just a cat. Well, then in that case... let me put it in a way that maybe you'll get. What if someone you cared about died and you thought the death could have possibly been prevented. You were upset over it and, rather than someone saying to you, "That's really too bad," they simply said, "Oh well, it's just a human. Humans do much more damage than cats ever dreamed of doing, after all. Humans destroy things and will blow up whomever and whatever they wish, in an effort to get their way." Im my opinion, it's the same thing.
Take Care,
Dawnielle
As a child I saw someone let there animals go. These cats breeded until we had so many running lose in our neighborhood they became dangerous.
They were wild and would attack you.
I am sorry that this cat was killed because it could have had a home, but if it didn't have a home a shelter can't save every cat, it is just not possible.
Look at all the cats in my neighborhood. We had to have them picked up. Kittens, many, mayb 40 cats, and most wild. What was the shelter going to do with 40 wild cats?
I do wonder if there were people willing to take this cat if they came forward after the fact? I can't imagine a shelter refusing to allow someone to take the animal in. They'd be delighted in fact.
let's face the harsh reality that some of you don't seem to be able to. death is a fact of life. this means that, whether said cat had been saved this time, he would've died eventually, anyway. from the sounds of things, though, keeping him alive wouldn't have done anything but cause him tremendous suffering. if some of you are able to sleep comfortably at night, knowing he was alive, in a constantly suffering state, more power to you. I must say, that's one of the most heartless, not to mention selfish, things I've ever heard.
To anser your hypothetical question, if someone close to me dies I will know why they died. They may die tragically, or they may die before their time. I will miss them, as I miss many people who have died, including a few extremely close to me. However, I realize that they are human and will one day die. Either they die now, or they die some day down the road, it is inevitable, I don't get upset over them dying. I get upset over the time I won't spend with them because they died.
However, this cat was not someone close to any of us. It wasn't the pet of one of us that was put down without our consent. None of us have any connection to the cat at all. The poster saw a news story, that's it. Its just a cat.
wow, that's all I've got to say; talk about insensative.
just because the cat was scared, in my opinion, does not necessarily mean he would have remained suffering for the rest of his life. That's the thing. That cat could have been a perfectly nice pet for someone, or it may not have. But does that mean that, just because it was blind and frightened, it could not have been given a chance at a new home, and thrived? No, but now that cat will not have a chance to have a decent life. That's the part I think is sad. It was put down before it had a chance to even try to have a decent life. if it still remained scared and was suffering after several months in a new home, that's one thing, in my opinion. Then you have a case for putting it down. But at least then, something was tried, rather than simply assuming the best choice was to put it down straight away. From what I've read and from everything i've seen, blind animals are a lot happier with their lives than humans are for the animal to be blind. Blind animals don't care if they're blind or not and if they can adjust to a home and know where things are, they don't have problems getting around or jumping on counters or whatever else. A lot of blind animals i've seen are very happy that way.
Take Care,
Dawnielle
But that then begs the question of whether it is right to force him to live in the home at all. That is technically impeding his right to life. Its facecious, but its true. Plus, why do people only care that it was a blind cat? Thousands of cats are put down every day, why do we not have floods of board posts about cats being put down? What makes a blind cat more deserving of life than a regular cat? Do you think blind cats are better than regular cats? And if you don't, then why do you care about the blind cat at all? You clearly don't care about the other cats, so your caring for the blind one is either biased in favor of blindness or it is disingenuous. which is it?
You think that's disgusting? There's way worse than that my friend. I bet you didn't think of the animals that live through abuse and torture, and kept alive so it can continue. But I suppose it's ok to keep them alive even though they are not being abused, because they're animals and it's not right to kill even if it is for the intent of putting it out of misery. Even though the animals will never trust a human, and be vicious and attack them, and cause harm to little kids who don't know better. Guess people's safety isn't all that important.
How many of you want to give up your blind services and blind benefits, so that these blinded cats can live? There's only so much money, after all. You're saying they have a right. More than a blind human? If you're on the government and you're expecting the blind cat to get a break, you're a fool. If you're not on the government, and still want the blind cats to be saved, it's reasonable if and only if you create some sort of nonprofit that doesn't take taxpayer money away from blind humans who need services, to give it to cats.
Plenty of identical cats in the world, so I really don't see what the big deal is.
I believe I said earlier, I respected his right to have an opinion.
And I for one, believe it's pretty sensative to talk about any death as though it doesn't matter. As someone said earlier eveyr life is precious.
Regarding this cat, it was treated unfairly and if he/she wer sighted, would never be put down in the first place.
No, his/her life would not have necessarily been cruel if kept alive because there are very kind people out there (thank God) who could have adopted it, as some were already apparently willing to do. The cat may have therefore been able to live inside and learn how to get around safely like any blind human. Just think about that before being so quick to judge. You may not like cats or dogs or animals in general but it doesn't mean principles should change in any way.
I'm an animal lover, you're not. I refuse to keep arguing for the sake of arguing. There's too much of unnecessary arguing going on the boards by the same people who, as I said in a different board post, clearly need to get out more.
Oh I adore animals. I have a guide dog. Who is currently in the hospital with an injury, so its not that I hate animals, or cats. I just understand the situation more fully and don't let my emotional responses dictate my opinion. It allows me to be more reasoning.
Ditto
Nobody likes euthanasia, it's not insensitive. I've assisted in euthanizing birds before, which although very quick and probably painless, isn't the same as them lying down and going to sleep like a dog does with a shot: they're put into a sealed container and usually helium is pumped in from one of those tanks. They pass out in seconds since they have such a high metabolism. But nobody is saying it's a fine thing. We're just saying, there is a difference between humans and animals.
Any of us humans may pick up a stray pound puppy, wipe off its fur, give it food and a place to sleep, and try and find a home for it. No such luck when animals find baby humans out in the wild. Not very often anyway. There is a difference: the primary one being that we are actually having this conversation.
If that cat had been sighted and euthanized, you would not be talking about it, because thousands are euthanized every single year in developed countries around the world, and thousands others die in nonindustrialized countries, of parasites or accidents or any number of other things. Ironically, the only thing that separates this one, and in some people's minds anyway, makes this one an exception is that it was blind. Could have been difficult to handle for any number of other reasons and this story would never have happpened. We're just saying look at the entire picture. You're human: you can look beyond your emotions. We don't expect that of animals: they have feelings just like us, but they are incapable of rising above those feelings to think critically about their world. There is a profound difference, despite what groups like PETA will tell you.
thank you, leo.
Also you are forgetting that many cats that can see are put down on a daily bases. Even kittens that are just starting life, because they simply don't have enough people adopting all these animals we humans allow to create.
If your ead the OP, it was indicated that the cat was aggressive. Blind or not, an aggressive cat may not be able to assimilate into a loving home... while I agree that it is possible that this cat could ahve been given another chance at life, there is no guarantee that the cat would not continue to be aggressive in a new environment...
Aggression can be trained out, no?
Not always. It depends on a lot of factors. The age of the animal for one thing and sometimes if abuse is involved the severity of it. But then I've also heard stories of both dogs and cats who were abused so severely that you would expect nothing but aggression from them and yet they still turned out to be the most loving pets you could hope for. In this case I can sort of see both sides of the coin. It is sad tat it ad to come to that but it's been my experience that most aimal control agencies will make every effort to find an animal a loving home and/or correct any aggression problems before resorting to euthenasia. If after extensive training or whatever those aggression issues didn't include they couldn't risk putting the animal out into the public. Domestic house cats, cuddly and wonderful though they may be, are nevertheless capable of inflicting serious damage. And they're still much closer to their wild counterparts than most dogs. And even some domestic dog breeds are closer to the wild than others.
They didn't do any of that with Kodak. That's my point. They should have.
And you'd have personally paid to make sure of that? Cause with kids going hungry in America, with teenagers not graduating high school as often as they used to, with all you guys saying you're not getting enough services, I just don't see how I should take money away from that and give it to a cat.
One of you animal lovers explain that one, with practical detail that someone not given to religionbabble or psychobabble can understand it.
And, if I might piggy back on LEO's point for a moment, why this cat? What makes this one particular cat more special than all the other cats?
Because it's a poor suffering blind cat who needed a chance at life... don't you read the posts?
*careful not to slip in the sarcasm*
yeah, agreed with the majority here. and the opposition. this is very trivial, sorry it died, but whatever, not important now lets talk about something that mattered?
and yes, exactly leo, I was going to say that exact point to, if it doesn't take the government money then do whatever silly stupid stuff you'd like but no thanks if it takes my money to do this! I am not prepared to be rob of my money for this stupidity! absolutely not!
and I am disgusted. using founding documents to justify animals? first of all they did not mean it for animals, and remember it wasn't even meant for all humans to you blacks out there at the founding of this nation it ain't matter so don't ever use it again for animals that is just a plain out disrespect to our founding fathers! what a shame!
Careful with the Blacks comment there, it wasn't meant for Asians either, if you want to swing it that way. Us on the West Coast are rather rightly ashamed of the deliberate mining fatalities done to Chinese mining workers to prevent them paying their wages. The founders were clearly wrong about race, but the Founding documents were designed with enough intelligence to undergo the necessary evolutionary changes in any society.
no one advocating for this cat has answered the question posed. other than religious babble, why is this cat, who you've never met, mind you, more special than starving children?
People are confusing this issue and cluttering it with a lot of back-and-forth roaring. I'm gonna chime in here.
No, I don't think we can save every unfortunate animal, regardless of its situation. No, on these grounds alone, this cat should not have been paid special attention. However, there is no shame admitting that its euthanizing because it was both blind and aggressive could be seen as sad, in the sense that senseless loss of life can be hard to swallow. It happens, and it's not going to stop happening, but it can still be hard to swallow. Let us remember that one of the things which supposedly makes us different from these animals is the capacity for both pity and empathy.
Now, let me tell you folks something about blind cats. In the wild, they're almost certainly dead. In a home environment, they can give all appearances of living pprfectly happy lives. My cousin has a cat who went blind fairly early in life; it is missing one eye, and the other does not function in any way. This cat sometimes bumps things, but actually gets around quite well. It trusts its whiskers, its hearing, and its sense of smell to give it most of the information it needs. It is seriously hampered as a predator, and I won't argue with that, but it is not going to necessarily spend the rest of its days suffering either. This is a cat who will come to you for cuddles and who adores attention, a creature who eats and eliminates waste and gets on with other cats in pretty normal ways from what I've come to understand. Believe me, I was fairly shocked to hear it, but I can't fail to believe it when I see it; perhaps this cat is a true rarity, I don't know...but until there is overwhelming proof that any blind cat is ultimately wasted, even in a home environment, I think some of the flames really ought to cool off.
This story is kind of sad, plain and simple. It is sad because it looks as if a greater part of the reason the animal was euthanized is because staff were not prepared to handle a blind cat. However, if the true issue was the cat's aggression, and if putting it to sleep would probably have occurred even if it was fully sighted, then it's sort of a moot point. There are too many cats in the world; I love them, but it's true.
Agreed. Sad things happen in the world every day, but some of them have good reasons behind them.