DISGUSTING! HSE killing cats in Galway

Hellrazer

newmug wrote: »

Not trying to derail the thread or anything, but we have some people in this country trying to legalise abortion, ie the killing of human children, while others are trying to oppose the killing of a pest around our hospitals, ie feral cats.

While I dont condone the killing of any living creature, you need to put things in perspective. Priorities people, priorities.

No you are trying to derail the thread.Humanities is listed under "soc" in the main heading.

girl in the striped socks

boomerang wrote: »

Cat fleas are a minor nuisance to people. They inhabit dog and cat fur, and should they land on a human, a bite or two is sufficient for them to hop off again in disgust.

Ticks don't jump around, and even if they did, it is extremely rare for cats to get them. I've cared for hundreds of cats and kittens over the years and have yet to find a tick on one. As yet and very thankfully, tick-borne diseases such as Lyme disease are still very rare in Ireland. In Ireland it's a sheep tick that attaches to people, dogs, cats and other warm-blooded animals.

Cat lice are also extremely rare and are species-specific so pose no threat to human health. (Not that lice such as head lice are anything more than a nuisance to humans, anyways.)

Ear mites of dogs and cats: Same story. I guarantee you you will never contract ear mites from a feral cat. Requires direct contact and survives a very, very short time on human skin. No treatment necessary.

Sarcoptic mange: Unusual to find this in cats and again requires direct contact so there is a ridiculously tiny chance you might contract it from a feral cat. You are infinitely more likely to contract it from shaking hands or sharing bedding with an infected person. Yok.

Ringworm? Children and the immuno-compromised such as the elderly are most susceptible to infection from affected cats. It is practically impossible to contract ringworm from a feral cat as transmission requires direct body contact. Theoretically you might contract ringworm by touching the spot where a feral cat regularly sleeps. As they sleep in as secluded and inaccessible a spot as they can find and shun all human interactions, the chances of this happening are virtually nil.

Cat roundworms? Rarely implicated in cases of human toxocariosis and infection is down to the person's poor personal hygiene. All soil is full of all kinds of potentially harmful toxins, insects, fungi, bacteria and parasitic eggs. Everyone should wash their hands after handling soil/gardening and teach their kids to do the same.

Not only is congenital toxoplasmosis rare, it is rarer still to be acquired through contact with cat faeces. Plenty of pregnant women maintain contact with their pet cats through pregnancy. The risk is eliminated by simple handwashing.

I hope all this info helps put things in perspective.There are thousands of zoonotic diseases that are far more devastating than any we risk acquiring from cats in this country.

We should cull all our dogs, cows, sheep, pigs, goats and chickens that come within an ass's roar of a human too, given the risk of acquiring brucellosis, tuberculosis, Johne's disease, Aujetsky's disease, leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis, giardiasis or cryptosporidium, E-coli, salmonella, listeria or campylobacter infection...



See where I'm coming from?

I certainly don't expect to go to a maternity hospital to pick up a potentially fatal disease which will affect my unborn child or leave an otherwise healthy child with zero quality of life.
If I did see cats hanging around the hospital I attend or if I did hear of a feral cat issue on its grounds then I would have no problem changing hospitals & making a complaint if the issue wasn't dealt with straight away.
My unborn child's life is not going to be compromised because some people may feel that feral cats are being treated unfairly. If anyone wants to disagree with me then go right ahead.
But before you do maybe consider contacting the pest control company in charge of removing those cats in Galway & offer to collect, neuter & rehome them.
There is absolutely no comparison to a child's life & a cats. And you can argue that once people wash hands regularly then it shouldn't pose a problem, but all it takes is one time for someone to be absent minded for it all to end in tears.
If everyone was that hygienic then hospitals wouldn't have as many cases of winter vomiting, flu etc.

unseenfootage

I love cats but hate fleas with a vengeance.

It is mostly for that reason that I will not have a cat as a pet.

Do I want to see a colony of cats in a hospital grounds. Definitely not.

They have absolutely no right to live there. HSE has every right (as well as the obligation,) to remove those cats from the premises for the health and safety of their staff and patients.

Just the other week their was an outbreak of something followed by an outbreak of something else.

The last thing they need is a colony of flea infested wild cats on their doorstep.

SillyMangoX

I think that's a bit of an over reaction for a reason not to have a cat if you love them, fleas are so easily controlled with spot on treatments. I've had animals my entire life and not once has any of them contracted fleas and that includes my cats and the feral cats in my vicinity, and while I agree that a hospital is no place for a cat, the hospital went about getting rid of them in the complete wring manner. It's not like they would be all over everyone, they would be living in some secluded spot on the grounds where very few, if anyone, would have access to as feral cats hate humans. The problem will not be solved by this as getting rid of the cats is just creating room for more cats to move in, when the logical thing to do would be trap, neuter, treat and release them back to the grounds. They could all be assessed and the completely healthy ones released if that would make people feel better and any showing signs of ill health could be taken in by rescue groups. The main outrage about this is that instead of doing the most humane thing and working with rescue agencies, the HSE jumped straight to killing the animals. A quote from Ghandi: ''The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.'' Personally I just don't trust a health service that is so quick to kill.

unseenfootage

^ It is a bit of an over reaction but we all have some phobia. Mine is fleas.

Why do you suggest that the cats must be released onto the grounds.

Now the GSPCA say that cats are an important part of the ecosystem. There are ecologists who will disagree.

Always thought that they are an introduced species.

SillyMangoX

If they are released into the grounds again they will be back in their own territory so will defend it from other cats trying to take over. The responsible thing to do would be to have a stable population of healthy cats to prevent any cats of unknown health taking over the area, and this will also help curtail any other pest problems eg rats and mice.

unseenfootage

^ who will feed them and take care of their health and welfare>

SillyMangoX

There are some rescue organisations who have been looking to step in but haven't been replied to by the HSE, I'm sure they would be more than willing.

Pumpkinseeds

The simple reality is that we will never know for sure where the fleas came from. It is an easy assumption to make, although not necessarily correct, to assume that they came from the cat colony. Either way the most humane way to deal with the cats would have been to have used a local animal welfare group.

We're constantly being told that there is no money for X,Y and Z in our public hospitals and yet the HSE could find the money to call in a private pest control company. I would've thought that would have been money better spent on another posters 'unborn baby':rolleyes:

I regularly attend that hospital and I'd be more worried about the skangers I see loitering around the corridors. On my last visit people were in a row with a scumbag who was trying to bring a bag of beer onto a ward:eek: I'd be more concerned about what I'd pick up from that sort. But hey lets all blame the cats and freak about about 'unborn babies':rolleyes:

borderlinemeath

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

I certainly don't expect to go to a maternity hospital to pick up a potentially fatal disease which will affect my unborn child or leave an otherwise healthy child with zero quality of life.

You have a far greater chance of picking up a bug or bacteria from another patient at the hospital than the negligible risk from feral cats.

If I did see cats hanging around the hospital I attend or if I did hear of a feral cat issue on its grounds then I would have no problem changing hospitals & making a complaint if the issue wasn't dealt with straight away.

If you lived in an urban area and there were cats that were allowed roam, what would you do then? Move? Because you're far more likely to encounter cats in your home environment. I live rurally and I see cats almost every day, if I become pregnant what do I do? Not leave the house?

My unborn child's life is not going to be compromised because some people may feel that feral cats are being treated unfairly. If anyone wants to disagree with me then go right ahead
But before you do maybe consider contacting the pest control company in charge of removing those cats in Galway & offer to collect, neuter & rehome them.

Pest control companies wouldn't have a clue about TNR. That's like asking a butcher to carry out vet procedures. They both deal with animals but in very different ways.

There is absolutely no comparison to a child's life & a cats. And you can argue that once people wash hands regularly then it shouldn't pose a problem, but all it takes is one time for someone to be absent minded for it all to end in tears.

Nobody compared a childs life to a cats, you've brought that into the thread. But unless you are going digging around in the flower beds and hedgerows of the hospital car park your chances are nil. Even if you don't wash your hands, every hospital has the hygienic hand gel dispensers everywhere, with big signs' above them insisting that all visitors use them. At my local hospital there's about 10 of them lined up at the front doors.

If everyone was that hygienic then hospitals wouldn't have as many cases of winter vomiting, flu etc.

The flu virus is an airborne disease rather than person to person contact in the case of the winter vomiting bug and much much harder to prevent. In the case of a novovirus you've just as much chance picking it up from getting change in shop or picking up a petrol pump or any other everyday situations.

TBH if you stressed that much about the dangers posed by a feral cat colony there's every chance that stress could be passed onto the baby. There's far more risks in everyday life that could pose a threat moreso than feral cats. But the hospital will put out headlines like these to appease the more nervous people that attend the hospital.

girl in the striped socks

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The simple reality is that we will never know for sure where the fleas came from. It is an easy assumption to make, although not necessarily correct, to assume that they came from the cat colony. Either way the most humane way to deal with the cats would have been to have used a local animal welfare group.

We're constantly being told that there is no money for X,Y and Z in our public hospitals and yet the HSE could find the money to call in a private pest control company. I would've thought that would have been money better spent on another posters 'unborn baby':rolleyes:

I regularly attend that hospital and I'd be more worried about the skangers I see loitering around the corridors. On my last visit people were in a row with a scumbag who was trying to bring a bag of beer onto a ward:eek: I'd be more concerned about what I'd pick up from that sort. But hey lets all blame the cats and freak about about 'unborn babies':rolleyes:

Why exactly are you using the roll eyes face? Do you think you're being clever or sarcastic or funny?
How do you know anything about my circumstances that you feel you can get away with trying to make little out of me? Because that's exactly what you're trying to do. Instead of accepting someone else's opinion on a subject you deliberately try to get your point across by making me out to be the one with the problem because I have an issue with feral cats in what is supposed to be a relatively hygienic place.
I really hope you feel like a big person after your sarcastic reply.

Pumpkinseeds

I'm showing your ignorance on this issue. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about but still ignorantly insist that animals should die to put your mind at rest:rolleyes: I hope you don't pass your feelings on animals to your child.

girl in the striped socks

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm showing your ignorance on this issue. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about but still ignorantly insist that animals should die to put your mind at rest:rolleyes: I hope you don't pass your feelings on animals to your child.

It's called being practical, I'm not showing ignorance, far from it. If you had read all of my posts on this matter & actually taken what I posted on board then you would realise that I'm not looking for animals to die to put my mind at rest as you so eloquently put it. I suggested that patient & staff safety is a priority over feral cats. Which is a fairly reasonable opinion to have on the matter. I'm well aware that feral cats can be captured, neutered & re released in the same area. But maybe that's not a viable option for all of them & only a certain percentage of the cats will be given that option while the rest are euthanised.
And as I suggested already if anyone feels that strongly about it then they should contact the pest control company contracted to remove the cats & offer to get them neutered & rehomed.
So can I ask how many cats you're going to save?
Or are you going to continue to sit on your high horse calling me ignorant because I have a different opinion to you on it?

Pumpkinseeds

The cats pose no threat to staff or patients, at least try to be realistic dear. I am involved in animal rescue and sadly there is far to much of your attitude in this country. We could argue this forever, however, when all is said and done you will put your baby before the welfare of cats. I think the cats are no threat to your baby and I would be more concerned with the welfare of the cat colony over your child.

I'm sure you don't fret about bacteria on door handles, processed foods, car fumes, pesticides in food, hormones in dairy products etc, etc, etc. All of those would be far more dangerous to a foetus than a cat.

girl in the striped socks

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The cats pose no threat to staff or patients, at least try to be realistic dear. I am involved in animal rescue and sadly there is far to much of your attitude in this country. We could argue this forever, however, when all is said and done you will put your baby before the welfare of cats. I think the cats are no threat to your baby and I would be more concerned with the welfare of the cat colony over your child.

I'm sure you don't fret about bacteria on door handles, processed foods, car fumes, pesticides in food, hormones in dairy products etc, etc, etc. All of those would be far more dangerous to a foetus than a cat.

You know you make some good points but its extremely hard to take what you're posting seriously when there is a constant sneering undertone to it.
And I don't have an attitude. I am an animal lover but I'm realistic. Not every single animal can be saved. That's the harsh reality of it. You might not like it but that's the way it is as I'm sure you're aware from your involvement in rescue work.
I don't see what my hygiene, diet or lifestyle has to do with this tbh but even before getting pregnant it was of a high standard. But I fail to see how that information adds to this thread or why you brought it up.

Nody

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

You know you make some good points but its extremely hard to take what you're posting seriously when there is a constant sneering undertone to it.
And I don't have an attitude. I am an animal lover but I'm realistic. Not every single animal can be saved. That's the harsh reality of it. You might not like it but that's the way it is as I'm sure you're aware from your involvement in rescue work.
I don't see what my hygiene, diet or lifestyle has to do with this tbh but even before getting pregnant it was of a high standard. But I fail to see how that information adds to this thread or why you brought it up.

But you do; you insist on that the cats should be killed because you're afraid they will somehow convey something to you/your future baby yet at ever point you've been shown that these cats is the least of your problem for you or your baby (between how you'd catch it to the number of issues at a hospital in itself to all the things in our daily life affecting a baby and the view of people working at the hospital never seing them) you brush it off and claim they still need to die.

So far the only reason you've put forward is "well some die anyway so might as well kill them" which is not exactly a strong argument now is it?

girl in the striped socks

Nody wrote: »

But you do; you insist on that the cats should be killed because you're afraid they will somehow convey something to you/your future baby yet at ever point you've been shown that these cats is the least of your problem for you or your baby (between how you'd catch it to the number of issues at a hospital in itself to all the things in our daily life affecting a baby and the view of people working at the hospital never seing them) you brush it off and claim they still need to die.

So far the only reason you've put forward is "well some die anyway so might as well kill them" which is not exactly a strong argument now is it?

If they are posing a problem then, yes, they should be euthanised. I'm not insisting on it I'm offering my opinion. As I have said repeatedly the ideal solution would be to capture, neuter & re release again but no one seems to want to read that or in fact take it on board.
And can you repost exactly where I said "well some die anyway so might as well kill them" ? Seriously I want to see exactly where I said that.

And as I have repeatedly asked other posters, but funny enough I have yet to get an answer: how many of those cats are you going capture, neuter & rehome? Providing re release in the same area isn't viable?

Nody

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

And as I have repeatedly asked other posters, but funny enough I have yet to get an answer: how many of those cats are you going capture, neuter & rehome? Providing re release in the same area isn't viable?

Personally I can't take any as I'm getting 4 new foster cats this week (two of which have lived their last year in a cellar with out any freedom) but I'd love to have taken some in if not

Also I think there's some argument past each other GitSS; your first posts came over quite aggressively (at least to me and I'd guess to others) and hence people reacted accordingly as the thread moved on and the blood started to pump. I think we're all in agreement than that the cats should (if possible) be neutered and rehomed as the best possible solution.

girl in the striped socks

Nody wrote: »

Personally I can't take any as I'm getting 4 new foster cats this week (two of which have lived their last year in a cellar with out any freedom) but I'd love to have taken some in if not

Also I think there's some argument past each other GitSS; your first posts came over quite aggressively (at least to me and I'd guess to others) and hence people reacted accordingly as the thread moved on and the blood started to pump. I think we're all in agreement than that the cats should (if possible) be neutered and rehomed as the best possible solution.

Except my original post was far from aggressive. I said its necessary to remove cats if they are causing problems. I also pointed out that whilst people may not like the idea of euthanising them it may be the only solution left.
I suggested they be captured, neutered & released again but given the world we live in euthanising them was probably going to be a more cost effective option.
I then ended my first post by suggesting that anyone who could offer the cats a home to get in contact with the pest control company.

No where in that post was I aggressive. It was as practical, realistic & level as I could have made it.

On post number #59 moderator DBB wrote a warning about sarcastic, snide, inflammatory, accusatory comments would result in an immediate ban with no warning. Some posts I gave very strong consideration to reporting because they amounted to little more than online bullying.

In the end I decided not to report. I really wanted to see how this would pan out & could a decent discussion be had on the subject.
I would love to know if I had actually posted some of what I was accused of saying would I have been banned or let away with it.

My opinion on animal welfare in this country is that mistreated animals have enough to deal with without genuine animal lovers turning on each other. And that's really what this thread has descended into. Pure madness.

borderlinemeath

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Except my original post was far from aggressive. I said its necessary to remove cats if they are causing problems. I also pointed out that whilst people may not like the idea of euthanising them it may be the only solution left.

In fairness, your first post came across as a complete over reaction. I replied in point form but you haven't bothered arguing with me, just with posters you can accuse of being snide to you. You said:

If I did see cats hanging around the hospital I attend or if I did hear of a feral cat issue on its grounds then I would have no problem changing hospitals & making a complaint if the issue wasn't dealt with straight away.

If that's not an over reaction I don't know what is. You may as well change every single daily habit you have if you want to avoid all that may harm your unborn baby. Because there's far far more things as other posters have stated. Do you accept change into your hand in a sterile glove? Because most money is covered in bacteria.

I suggested they be captured, neutered & released again but given the world we live in euthanising them was probably going to be a more cost effective option.
I then ended my first post by suggesting that anyone who could offer the cats a home to get in contact with the pest control company.

No where in that post was I aggressive. It was as practical, realistic & level as I could have made it.

On post number #59 moderator DBB wrote a warning about sarcastic, snide, inflammatory, accusatory comments would result in an immediate ban with no warning. Some posts I gave very strong consideration to reporting because they amounted to little more than online bullying.

In the end I decided not to report. I really wanted to see how this would pan out & could a decent discussion be had on the subject.
I would love to know if I had actually posted some of what I was accused of saying would I have been banned or let away with it.

My opinion on animal welfare in this country is that mistreated animals have enough to deal with without genuine animal lovers turning on each other. And that's really what this thread has descended into. Pure madness.

Seriously are you going to go digging around in flower beds in the hospital car park? Because that's where the risk to your unborn child will be. Perhaps, maybe, a very small chance that you might come across faeces when you're in the flower beds, along with all the other patients that go rummaging in the hedgerows before entering the hospital.

While you may have suggested in your post that people contact the pest control company, it isn't really the issue here. Pest control companies get a contract and they carry it out. The problem is the HSE and their usual approach to a problem, the fact that they didn't consult any local volunteer groups and just went straight for what they consider to be the easiest and not necessarily the most cost effective option without regard for the possible consequences of a vermin infestation or a different cat colony moving in so they have to repeat their extermination and another costly contract with a pest control company.

Perhaps they should be looking at best practices with refuse in the hospital as the only reason cats would be living on the grounds is if there was a good supply of refuse to scavenge on.

boomerang

My point is that the cats are not a problem! I don't understand your insistence that they must be removed for reasons of public safety, when I have given you all of the objective research I've carried out on the subject.

There were 40,000 births in Ireland between 2010-2011. Out of that 40,000 there were 15 incidences of congenital toxoplasmosis and only ONE case was potentially linked to cats, which may well have been family pets. That's an incidence of one in 40,000.

But no, let's cull these cats, just in case. When it hasn't even been established that they were the source of the fleas that bit some hospital staff.

And there is a constant suggestion throughout the thread that those of us who care about the fate of these (now deceased cats) are living in the clouds and it's ridiculous to think anyone would be willing to trap, neuter, monitor and look after the daily welfare of these cats. This is what myself and dozens of others do, day in and day out! I'm not in Galway but our group offered to contribute to the cost of the TNR. Sadly as the news was breaking, it was already all over.

GreeBo

boomerang wrote: »

My point is that the cats are not a problem! I don't understand your insistence that they must be removed for reasons of public safety, when I have given you all of the objective research I've carried out on the subject.

There were 40,000 births in Ireland between 2010-2011. Out of that 40,000 there were 15 incidences of congenital toxoplasmosis and only ONE case was potentially linked to cats, which may well have been family pets. That's an incidence of one in 40,000.

But no, let's cull these cats, just in case. When it hasn't even been established that they were the source of the fleas that bit some hospital staff.

And there is a constant suggestion throughout the thread that those of us who care about the fate of these (now deceased cats) are living in the clouds and it's ridiculous to think anyone would be willing to trap, neuter, monitor and look after the daily welfare of these cats. This is what myself and dozens of others do, day in and day out! I'm not in Galway but our group offered to contribute to the cost of the TNR. Sadly as the news was breaking, it was already all over.

Perhaps the rates are so low because Hospitals arent in the habit of allowing feral cats to live on their premises?

borderlinemeath

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps the rates are so low because Hospitals arent in the habit of allowing feral cats to live on their premises?

The rates are so low because the general public tend never to come in contact with feral cats or their faeces wherever they may be based be that a hospital, a shopping centre, an urban or rural area. The people that do come into contact with them are the volunteers that run the TNR schemes and only because they get trapped, ferals are virtually impossible to approach or catch without a trap.

The Sweeper

Would like to know how the hospital manages their food waste, their outdoor bins and whether or not staff and long term patients have ever been seen feeding cats. Strongly doubt such a large colony lives off rats or mice or moonlight they licked off a stone.

iguana

boomerang wrote: »

There were 40,000 births in Ireland between 2010-2011. Out of that 40,000 there were 15 incidences of congenital toxoplasmosis and only ONE case was potentially linked to cats, which may well have been family pets. That's an incidence of one in 40,000.

I'm not sure that's correct. The study you referred to early studied 15 recorded cases, it didn't say those 15 cases were the only ones (or if it did you didn't post that part). As far as I know, while cases of congenital tp are very low in Ireland they are a fair bit higher and more like 0.2% of births or 50-100 before the baby boom which began in 2009, closer to 160 a year now. As well as that a study of 15 is not a very good indicator of average causality. But even if it was that makes it 10 children a year that get the disease from cats. And that only counts those who survive the infection, in early pregnancy the most likely outcome of the infection is miscarriage, the rates of which are not recorded.

"In Ireland, the rate of seroconversion to T.gondii in pregnancy is estimated to be around 2 per 1000, leading to the birth of 50 to 100 infected children per year."
http://www.tcd.ie/tsmj/2000/Toxo.html

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps the rates are so low because Hospitals arent in the habit of allowing feral cats to live on their premises?

The rates are so low because in Ireland women are told not to eat uncooked/rare meat while pregnant. In countries like France where meat is almost always eaten uncooked or very rare tp rates are quite high and it is routinely tested for.

I don't think cats are a huge risk factor for congenital tp however they are a risk and possibly 10 children a year to be needlessly infected with a parasite that has a horrific outcome isn't going to be ignored in this type of situation. This is a hospital which houses the only maternity unit in a large urban and rural region. It CAN NOT take a risk of infection. Just imagine the level of shítstorm that would fall upon the hospital if a child was born there with TP and the parents linked it to cat colony. Not many hospitals will risk that outcome, UCHG following recent events in the maternity unit certainly can't. Under no circumstances are they going to allow a trap, neuter and return scheme that would leave them reliant on volunteers to care for the cats. They are a hospital, they can not take that risk.

DBB

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

On post number #59 moderator DBB wrote a warning about sarcastic, snide, inflammatory, accusatory comments would result in an immediate ban with no warning. Some posts I gave very strong consideration to reporting because they amounted to little more than online bullying.

In the end I decided not to report. I really wanted to see how this would pan out & could a decent discussion be had on the subject.
I would love to know if I had actually posted some of what I was accused of saying would I have been banned or let away with it.

If you were bothered by posts, you should have reported them. You cannot say you were going to report certain posts and then come on here giving out about what happened because you didn't!
I do agree with you though, that this thread is descending into the usual circular arguments. Up to a point, although there was disparity in opinion, everyone was arguing their points with reasonable respect, but as feared, the latter part of this thread just started to turn nasty and unconstructive. For this reason, I am now closing this thread.
Thanks,
DBB