Am I the only person in the country who would not adopt a cat which savaged people, and who if my cat started to savage people at random would consider the possibility that it might savage a small child’s face and take it to the vet for terminal remedial treatment? Nobody would condone keeping a dog which habitually attacked people, yet for some reason a vicious cat seems to be regarded as fine.
Oh, don’t worry, I’m sure many people feel the same.
As dogs that attack can kill, there’s more of an argument for having them destroyed. The Hilda story is foolish anyway, since cats do not generally attack people who leave them alone. Anyone who, being told ‘the cat doesn’t like being stroked/approached’, strokes or approaches it does so at their own risk and will learn a valuable lesson.
Why drag the ‘small child’ angle into it at all? I get particularly antsy when, in the context of something like drunken or dangerous driving, people wail ‘But s/he might have killed a child!’ And so what? They might have killed an adult also.
Because damage to the face of a small child – which is as likely as killing if the small child doesn’t know enough to avoid a vicious pet – is unpleasant to contemplate. It gives a bit of perspective; it is is extremely rare for a dog to kill a child, but disfiguring one is more likely in both dog and cat.
The risk to a small child is greater, because a small child does not have the experience to refuse to be in the same room as a vicious animal which it has not seen an adult be savaged by.
As far as I can make out, Peggy doesn’t say that Hilda doesn’t like being touched. She instructed Brian to pet the animal, didn’t she? That is very unethical behaviour, to me, and I don’t trust her not to say the same to Keira or Mia, if they were within range.
Well, I wouldn’t have a healthy cat of which I was fond destroyed because of some theoretical risk of disfigurement. An excellent excuse for avoiding visits from the embratted classes.
And if Hilda rips Henry’s face off, you will hear me cheering from here. That would go some way to compensate me for the loathsome pwattle foisted on us.
Would you adopt a cat which within a day of the adoption had savagely attacked at least three people for no reason? Because I wouldn’t; it might also attack me.
I wouldn’t expect to encounter such an animal. Not how they behave, in my experience. But yes, I probably would. Because there would be a reason for its behaviour.
Actually, when I say ‘would’, I did give a home for a time to an exceedingly savage tabby. She was fine with me, though, and tolerated Himself, although she taught him not to Take Liberties. Made mincemeat of the vet and his assistant and would retire to the top bookshelf and hiss at visitors ;- ) Found a suitable permanent home for her, too.
That there may be a reason does not make the behaviour any better, though.
There is a reason for serial killers torturing people to death, but that doesn’t mean I feel any need to facilitate it. In that case I would favour the death penalty, because I don’t think the condition which causes the behaviour is curable, and I feel that we have plenty enough human beings without nurturing and preserving specimens with such a very basic contra-survival flaw. I’d give the time and money and difficulty lavished on preserving the life of a serial killer to a few starving po’ white trash who hadn’t yet started killing in a random way, by choice.
There are a lot of cats – and if one which is essentially psychotic is preserved, it is occupying a place which might be home to one with the same need for love, and no opportunity. Would the suitable permanent home equally have accepted a cat who was merely unfortunate rather than unfortunate and savage with it?
I suppose it might depend on what one thinks a cat is for. I have never really subscribed to a theory that they are for making themselves odious to all (or all but one) around them. Being individuals, certainly; being individuals you’d cross the road to avoid, well, not in my house.
I don’t think cats are for anything, except being cats. Would X and Y have taken a different cat? Probably. But the adoption worked out very well on the whole. The cat formed a very strong bond with the husband, befriended the daily and shunned the wife for quite a while. She has mellowed with age and does less shunning these days. Not a cuddlesome cat at all but cheerful, and a mighty hunter of rodents and thwapper of strange dogs.
You might not approve, but I feel that it was a most satisfactory outcome all round.
Writing about her earlier on reminded me of the time the animal in question sat observing me making jewellery with great interest. It is something which requires a fair amount of concentration so at first I didn’t notice the gentle crunching. Which was Miss SockPuss merrily devouring my freshwater pearls. Apparently they do taste faintly of fish…
And being cruel evil little sods (although they can’t help it). Have at last rescued poor tiny mouse from bathroom where it was being assiduously hunted by Mrs B Cat. It will probably die of shock and fright outside but she didn’t seem to have harmed it. Trouble is, she fits under the bath better than I do…
Tried to start a new thread, but the Topic Police more or less ordered me here, so…
I was wondering why everyone insists on referring to that ghastly feline by her full name, à la Joe Grundy, when it suddenly occurred to me: of course, she is a Grundy! An ancient TA mystery explained at last: two lives down, seven to go…
Peggy just calls her Hilda, mostly, doesn’t she? It’s not so much that the cat is a Grundy, but that Joe Grundy, ancient and desiccated as he now is, is rubbing off on the other inhabitants all of a sudden. We will never truly be rid of the old scrote.
Meanwhile I feel the portrayal of Hilda is a foul speciesist slur upon felines. Mere cat she may be, but …
Gawds, not another one…
Nice one, Joe!
Janie dere, what do you think the ‘sorry’ at the bottom of my post was about? I think you mean ‘Nice one, Gus’, actually.
< sulks >
Crikey, so you did. I should have known it was no accident. < bows respectfully >