Returned stray cat seriously preggers!!

Jinxi

Just looking for some advise.
I'm house/dog sitting for the week. They have two dogs and a neutered queen. 8 months ago they got another female kitten, she was about 3/4 months old. While waiting to spay her she ran off, but periodically would turn up and stay for a week, before heading off again. They haven't seen her for over a month but she arrived bsck this afternoon and has lost a huge amont of weight(except for a large retund belly). She is obviously preggers(increased breast tissue, prominent nipples). She wolfed down a huge meal and is crazy affectionate and is really tired but she is purring in her sleep. There is no nipple discharge so I don't thing birth is immenent.
Any recommendations in what to feed her. Should I keep her away from other cat? Should I give her a birthing box?

Stheno

Can you contact the owners?

They may not want to have the cat have the kittens, and there are vets who will operate prior to the cat having the kittens to end the pregnancy.

That aside, she will need a high quality cat food, and lots of space.

mymo

I would try to keep her in, shut her in a bathroom or somewhere(where she won't be disturbed), make her a comfy little nest and give her plenty of food to feed her up before the birth, plenty of fresh water too.
A day or two before the birth you will see the milk come in, so you'll have some warning(could be as little as couple of hours).
If she gets out again she might not come back, or she'll have the kittens and they'll be too wild to catch.

Jinxi

Surely a vet wouldn't abort this late in a pregnancy:eek:
Gave her loads of food. She is just sleeping and eating at the mo.
Contacted owners. They were suprised she was backbut not surprised re pregnancy. They reckon there is no tom cat for miles and that was why she went wandering.
I wont let her out at all. Its her first time and she isn't in great condition. Gave her the food that was here for the other cat but will buy some kitten food in the morning(according to the net).
Worried that the other cat will disturb her(or the three dogs).

lrushe

Jinxi wrote: »

Surely a vet wouldn't abort this late in a pregnancy:eek:.

I've seen dog pregnancies ended late ie. fully formed foetuses but without any hair.

Jinxi

thats horrific

The Sweeper

Jinxi, what's horrific is the number of cats and kittens put to sleep in shelters every year. At least if the vet spays the cat while pregnant, there won't be kittens to add to the problem of unwanted cats, and the cat won't breed again.

Jinxi

Surely it makes sense that instead of killing the kittens in utero that are practically fully formed, at leat wait until after the birth and try to find them homes??? I would understand if it was relativly early in the pregnancy.
BTW I totally agree with spaying all cats. Speaking on behalf of the owners of this cat, it was a genuine mistake and they will def find homes for the kittens or keep them and spay them. They are responsible pet owners and have spayed their other three animals.

The Sweeper

Cat gestation is 63 days. If she's only gone a month, she's only half way through gestation.

Given she's only eight months old, the pregnancy is robbing her of the nutrition and calories she requires for her own growth. She may very well be stunted by this litter. If she has kittens the feeding of those kittens will place a further strain on her young system. She may also suffer complications in delivery because she is so young, and the kittens may die. She may also require emergency vet assistance. She could even die herself.

If the kittens are born and rehomed, they simply take up homes that kittens on death row in the pound could have taken up. The huge numbers of euthanised cats come from somewhere - and many of them come from situations just like this, where people allow their cat to have 'just one litter' before being spayed.

If you at least take them to the vet, the vet can offer you an opinion on the viability of the litter versus the notion of neutering now before the pregnancy progresses.

If you choose to continue with the pregnancy, the vet can offer you advice on calorie supplements to assist the mother (you might look at high quality kitten food and a calorie supplement like Nutrigel for her, but get the vet's advice).

Jinxi

I don't really understand your logic re the rehoming situation.
As stated the cat ran away before she was ready for spaying and onlt retured sporadically.
She is about 1 ish as she was a rescue kitten its hard to pin point her birth.
She has been goen a month but as she is very visibly preggers(can feel the kittens inside her and they are v big) and she has serieuoslt increased mammary tissue beneath teats, I would guestimate she has a week or two left.
Will get kitten food tomorrow and probably a flea treatment

The Sweeper

I don't understand how you don't get the rehoming problem.

The cat could have four kittens. Four people in four houses each want one kitten. You offer them each a kitten. They each take a kitten. Four kittens in a shelter or at the pound get euthanised, because you have used up four homes with a birth that does not have to happen. The kittens each live a long and happy life, so you have taken four potential cat homes off the market for 15 years.

If the four homes you're taking each went to a shelter, they could get a cat that was already desexed, or a cat that comes with a voucher for desexing. Your kittens will go to homes who may make the same mistake as your cat owners have already made, and allow each of the kittens to have one litter before desexing them.

If they do make that mistake, each of the kittens could have four more kittens. 16 kittens plus the four original kittens plus the original cat; you are now taking up 21 homes that could otherwise have taken cats from the pound or from shelters.

The issue is that all of the above does not have to happen, because you could still take the cat to the vet now, and have her spayed. If the vet believes she's too far gone in the pregnancy they'll tell you, but every day you wait is a day closer to not having a choice at all.

The mindset of most people is that what happens with their cat will not make a difference to the overall problem. The tragedy of the commons.

The tens of thousands of cats euthanised every year in pounds and shelters come from somewhere - and many, many of them are surrendered by homes who allowed their cat have one litter. (Think about it - cats aren't like dogs, the warden doesn't go arond picking strays up off the street and bringing them to the pound. Most cats in the pound have been surrendered by someone who no longer wants them, or can't find homes for the kittens.)

Be very careful what you treat a pregnant cat with regarding flea treatments. It may be best to get a flea comb and comb the cat for fleas if you're concerned she has them. Examine the fur on the back of her neck and on the end of her back, above her tail. If she has fleas, you will see black speckles in this fur. If you pull the speckles off and press them onto a wet tissue, they will smear red. This is flea poo, and the red is the blood from the cat. If she does not have flea dirt, comb her but don't use a chemical spot-on with a pregnant cat. (Some are approved for use on pregnant cats - Frontline, I think, and some are not - like Advantage, I believe. Again this would be an issue best checked with the vet.)

Even at one year, the cat is still a juvenile. The litter is still impacting the nutrition she can get into her own body. Plus she may appear hugely pregnant because she is not yet fully grown, and the pregnancy is disproportionately large compared to her little frame.

Look, if the owners want her to have the litter, then obviously what I'm writing her won't change their minds. They'll have a few weeks of cute kittens, and hopefully they'll do the right thing and have them neutered - but if they rehome them before neutering then they could each very well continue to add to the problem. If nothing else, please ask them not to rehome until 10 weeks, rehome to homes that will keep the cats indoors until neutering, and do NOT allow the female out again until she's been neutered or she WILL come back pregnant (she may go into heat again and start calling when the kittens are as young as six weeks).

Graces7

The Sweeper wrote: »

I don't understand how you don't get the rehoming problem.

The cat could have four kittens. Four people in four houses each want one kitten. You offer them each a kitten. They each take a kitten. Four kittens in a shelter or at the pound get euthanised, because you have used up four homes with a birth that does not have to happen. The kittens each live a long and happy life, so you have taken four potential cat homes off the market for 15 years.

If the four homes you're taking each went to a shelter, they could get a cat that was already desexed, or a cat that comes with a voucher for desexing. Your kittens will go to homes who may make the same mistake as your cat owners have already made, and allow each of the kittens to have one litter before desexing them.

If they do make that mistake, each of the kittens could have four more kittens. 16 kittens plus the four original kittens plus the original cat; you are now taking up 21 homes that could otherwise have taken cats from the pound or from shelters.

The issue is that all of the above does not have to happen, because you could still take the cat to the vet now, and have her spayed. If the vet believes she's too far gone in the pregnancy they'll tell you, but every day you wait is a day closer to not having a choice at all.

The mindset of most people is that what happens with their cat will not make a difference to the overall problem. The tragedy of the commons.

The tens of thousands of cats euthanised every year in pounds and shelters come from somewhere - and many, many of them are surrendered by homes who allowed their cat have one litter. (Think about it - cats aren't like dogs, the warden doesn't go arond picking strays up off the street and bringing them to the pound. Most cats in the pound have been surrendered by someone who no longer wants them, or can't find homes for the kittens.)

Be very careful what you treat a pregnant cat with regarding flea treatments. It may be best to get a flea comb and comb the cat for fleas if you're concerned she has them. Examine the fur on the back of her neck and on the end of her back, above her tail. If she has fleas, you will see black speckles in this fur. If you pull the speckles off and press them onto a wet tissue, they will smear red. This is flea poo, and the red is the blood from the cat. If she does not have flea dirt, comb her but don't use a chemical spot-on with a pregnant cat. (Some are approved for use on pregnant cats - Frontline, I think, and some are not - like Advantage, I believe. Again this would be an issue best checked with the vet.)

Even at one year, the cat is still a juvenile. The litter is still impacting the nutrition she can get into her own body. Plus she may appear hugely pregnant because she is not yet fully grown, and the pregnancy is disproportionately large compared to her little frame.

Look, if the owners want her to have the litter, then obviously what I'm writing her won't change their minds. They'll have a few weeks of cute kittens, and hopefully they'll do the right thing and have them neutered - but if they rehome them before neutering then they could each very well continue to add to the problem. If nothing else, please ask them not to rehome until 10 weeks, rehome to homes that will keep the cats indoors until neutering, and do NOT allow the female out again until she's been neutered or she WILL come back pregnant (she may go into heat again and start calling when the kittens are as young as six weeks).

Abortion is morally wrong. Period. Any vet who would do this is not to be trusted. Period. No statistical info faces this fact.

Jinxi

Sweeper, I am aware of the problem re unresponsible owners and the amount of kittens that are killed and the amount of feral cats.
I also beleive the owners are responsible pet owners, they have to cancel an appointment to get this cat neutered as it disappeared!
But(and you don't have to reply in a patronising way as per your last message), your logic says kill these kittens so four other kittens don't have to be killed????
This is not a moral issue with me BTW. I think that spaying cats and finding some small embryos is not an uncommon thing as cats keep going into estreus(sp)until they get pregnant. Terminations in this respect is not a bad idea.

The Sweeper

There is no tone in text. I am not being patronising. You may be reading it like that, but I'm not trying to write it in that way. You said you didn't understand me, so I tried to explain myself more clearly. (Note the definite lack of the use of things like "*sigh*" or the eyeroll smiley - honestly, I'm not trying to be patronising!)

Yes, I am saying that if you have the cat spayed now, and the vet agrees that the termination is viable because the cat isn't that pregnant, you are both preventing kittens from adding to the existing problem, and leaving potential homes open for live, viable, breathing kittens who are currently facing being PTS in pounds and shelters.

Again, you do not HAVE to allow a pregnant cat to carry the pregnancy to term. It's a choice, you don't have to do it, and if you choose to do it, you're adding to the problem.

You have to intervene at some point. This, to me, is as good a time as any. (Saying that, you may take the cat to the vet and the vet may say 'too far gone, sorry, go buy some kitten food' and if that happens it happens.)

Since I don't believe in God, I don't support the right to life of the unborn kitten on basic moral grounds. I look at every case individually, against the backdrop of the overall problem, created by people, of unwanted pets euthanised due to carelessness and a lack of accountability. I see no difference between a vet who euthanises a litter of unborn kittens while spaying the mother, and a vet who euthanises living kittens because they cannot be homed. (Except that maybe the one who's euthanising the unborn litter is sparing them the short and unfortnate experience of their lives and their deaths in the pound. Perhaps he's also denying them their chance at a home, but then we're into the whole beauty contest that is the pound and the shelter, and again that'll bring this thread off topic.)

Jinxi I know you believe the people who own the cat are responsible pet owners because they had her booked in for a spay and she just nicked off, but there are different perceptions of responsibility. Compared to some of the pet owners out there, who never spay their animals, and barely even feed and worm them, yes, these people are most certainly responsible pet owners.

But how do they fare against people who do not allow their cats to roam until they are spayed? Or against people who never allow their cats to roam? I don't want to get into the roaming argument, because that's a whole other kettle of fish and it will derail this thread, but do you see what I mean? Compared to owners who mitigate all risks of their cat getting pregnant, the owners you describe are simply careless, possibly careless and ignorant. (Harsh, maybe, I'm just trying to make a point.) Compared to owners who do nothing for their cats, the owners you describe are excellent pet owners.

However, saying that they were responsible because they booked an appointment, but then saying the cat ran away, nothing could be done, now she's pregnant, nothing can be done, and she'll have the kittens, and nothing can be done - that's handing away repsonsibility for a situation where you may still be able to intervene and prevent more kittens being added to the problem of unwanted pets.

(Who knows, the owners in your case may keep ALL of the kittens and neuter all of them, and that will be a happy outcome in this situation.)

doctor evil

Jinxi wrote: »

As stated the cat ran away before she was ready for spaying and onlt retured sporadically.

Why wasn't she kept in the first time she returned? Granted kittens are small and frisky but they are not that difficult to keep in.

Graces7

The Sweeper wrote: »

There is no tone in text. I am not being patronising. You may be reading it like that, but I'm not trying to write it in that way. You said you didn't understand me, so I tried to explain myself more clearly. (Note the definite lack of the use of things like "*sigh*" or the eyeroll smiley - honestly, I'm not trying to be patronising!)

Yes, I am saying that if you have the cat spayed now, and the vet agrees that the termination is viable because the cat isn't that pregnant, you are both preventing kittens from adding to the existing problem, and leaving potential homes open for live, viable, breathing kittens who are currently facing being PTS in pounds and shelters.

Again, you do not HAVE to allow a pregnant cat to carry the pregnancy to term. It's a choice, you don't have to do it, and if you choose to do it, you're adding to the problem.

You have to intervene at some point. This, to me, is as good a time as any. (Saying that, you may take the cat to the vet and the vet may say 'too far gone, sorry, go buy some kitten food' and if that happens it happens.)

Since I don't believe in God, I don't support the right to life of the unborn kitten on basic moral grounds. I look at every case individually, against the backdrop of the overall problem, created by people, of unwanted pets euthanised due to carelessness and a lack of accountability. I see no difference between a vet who euthanises a litter of unborn kittens while spaying the mother, and a vet who euthanises living kittens because they cannot be homed. (Except that maybe the one who's euthanising the unborn litter is sparing them the short and unfortnate experience of their lives and their deaths in the pound. Perhaps he's also denying them their chance at a home, but then we're into the whole beauty contest that is the pound and the shelter, and again that'll bring this thread off topic.)

Jinxi I know you believe the people who own the cat are responsible pet owners because they had her booked in for a spay and she just nicked off, but there are different perceptions of responsibility. Compared to some of the pet owners out there, who never spay their animals, and barely even feed and worm them, yes, these people are most certainly responsible pet owners.

But how do they fare against people who do not allow their cats to roam until they are spayed? Or against people who never allow their cats to roam? I don't want to get into the roaming argument, because that's a whole other kettle of fish and it will derail this thread, but do you see what I mean? Compared to owners who mitigate all risks of their cat getting pregnant, the owners you describe are simply careless, possibly careless and ignorant. (Harsh, maybe, I'm just trying to make a point.) Compared to owners who do nothing for their cats, the owners you describe are excellent pet owners.

However, saying that they were responsible because they booked an appointment, but then saying the cat ran away, nothing could be done, now she's pregnant, nothing can be done, and she'll have the kittens, and nothing can be done - that's handing away repsonsibility for a situation where you may still be able to intervene and prevent more kittens being added to the problem of unwanted pets.

(Who knows, the owners in your case may keep ALL of the kittens and neuter all of them, and that will be a happy outcome in this situation.)

This post is even more patronising that your others.. And very aggressive and judgmental also with shades of ...

Thankfully few would do as you think ...

We talked of this, and no one we know would ever ask or expect a vet to do this. There is no such thing as "very pregnant" Pregnancy is a simple fact.

Putting you back oin my "ignore" list. Easier that way.

Jinxi

As stated I'm not the owner of the cat.

I have noticed that a tone has begun to permiate the boards lately. Not everyone has the same ideals when it comes to life. Judgement has become the absolute norm here. Its not just a sharing of ideas anymore. I always feel a real need to defend myself in all posts.

These are a family who live in an EXTREMELY rural setting. They have four young children under 10, two dogs and two cats. They all have uncontroled access to the outdoors. To restrict her access she would have to locked in the utlity room. The cat showed not sign of wanting to roam until she went into heat the first time.

There is a huge difference between ideals of responsible pet ownership, and there are varying lifestyle influences. Anyone that loves/provides safety and medical treatment for their pets and does THEIR PERSONAL BEST is a responsible pet owner. You guys need to get off your moral high horses

PS. just want to reiterate that I have no problem with terminating an early pregnancy. Wheter you agree with that or not is a PERSONAL choice

ISDW

Graces7 wrote: »

This post is even more patronising that your others.. And very aggressive and judgmental also with shades of ...

Thankfully few would do as you think ...

We talked of this, and no one we know would ever ask or expect a vet to do this. There is no such thing as "very pregnant" Pregnancy is a simple fact.

Putting you back oin my "ignore" list. Easier that way.

Thankfully a lot would do as Sweeper thinks, otherwise we would have an awful lot more unwanted animals in the world. I would hope that most vets would be willing to carry out an emergency spay, obviously not if the pregnancy is too far along, but the bible does say "thou shallt not kill", so surely putting animals to sleep in a pound because there are no homes for them is worse than terminating a pregnancy before they are sensient beings?

Sorry to the OP for taking this off topic, but I would love you to explain the morals behind terminating an unwanted pregnancy in an animal. Do you disagree with spaying and neutering as well? Because that surely would also be immoral. You have mentioned a few times previously that your family breed or used to breed dogs in Canada. Were the matings never assisted in any way? Even just by holding the bitch so the male could mount her? Immoral surely if you are applying the same moral code to animals as you appear to do to people.

Again, apologies to the OP. Would you consider taking the cat to the vet tomorrow and seeing what they say as to how far along the pregnancy is? Then the owners could make an informed decision?

Jinxi

Went to vet yesterday as cat needed flea treatment. Vet reckons she is advanced and thinks ther is only 2/3 weeks left. She also reckons that she has only two or three kittens at most.

ISDW

Jinxi wrote: »

Went to vet yesterday as cat needed flea treatment. Vet reckons she is advanced and thinks ther is only 2/3 weeks left. She also reckons that she has only two or three kittens at most.

OK, will the owners be back by then, or are you going to have to deal with the births? (is it whelping in cats, as it is with dogs?)

mrsdewinter

Hi OP,

Just want to say fair play to you for stepping up to the plate and bringing the cat to the vet. You're in the middle of a problem that is certainly not of your making and you've handled it with great grace.

Hope your friends appreciate all your good work

The Sweeper

Let us know if you're likely to be around for the birth, and we can give you pointers on what to expect.

Jinxi

Its called queening for cats. I was about for one of my own cats litters years ago(I was about 14 at the time).
But owners should be back before they are due. I made her a birthing box and I have been putting her in the utility room with it every night. Hopefully thats where she will choose to have them.
Feeding her extra protein(eggs and tuna) a per vets advise. Just so you know, pregnant cats are extra flatulant and that combo with egg and tuna will make your eyes water:(
Any advise will be helpful to pass on to owners. I know that nipple discharge= birth imminent. I also remember that normal delivery is head first and that mum will take care of amniotic sack and placenta.
Weirdly, at 14, I instictivly knew to break the bag and put kitten near mouth of the mother to clean up. I didn't even have discovery channel at that age!:cool:

Hellrazer

Graces7 wrote: »

Abortion is morally wrong.

Humanities is that way --->>>>


I really dont see the need for this type of argument in animals and pets so lets drop it.