
Behind Every Good Whisky Is a Trusty Distillery Cat - juanplusjuan
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/09/09/347093135/behind-every-good-whisky-is-a-trusty-distillery-cat
======
jrapdx3
Reminds me of the cat that years ago inhabited Powell's technical bookstore
(in Portland OR). The grayish feline was a inconspicuous mascot. Sometimes
seen calmly striding among the bookshelves, with little attention to the
humans milling about but mostly was ensconced in some private retreat.

I used to go there frequently to hunt down computer books, but remember most
enjoyably not only the store cat, but even more the collection of CD's that
were sold way back when.

In the early 90's, with those CD's I was introduced to Linux 1.0, and FreeBSD
2.0, Walnut Creek and other names that endure in my memory. It was a very
exciting time. Thanks for giving me that pleasure for a moment once again.

~~~
bitwize
When Fup died in 2007, it made the top page of Reddit. I was a bit surprised
and delighted to see such a piece of Portlandia get worldwide e-fame, even as
I mourned her passing. Only met her once or twice. She was old and not quite
so mobile by the time I even saw her.

~~~
jrapdx3
Thanks. You and schoen are right--I'd forgotten about Fup's "obituary". I
hadn't been so regular a visitor to the bookstore since the late 90's.

Around that time pace of change was speeding up, everything in the computing
field evolving so quickly when a book was published it was already obsolete.
"Dead tree" books were much less necessary.

I stopped in a few days ago (tech books now located closer to the main
bookstore) looking for a reference book on computer security. Alas, selection
was meager, the shelf space devoted to computing topics less than a tenth what
it once was.

The store now overflows with tons of books on birds and botany, cars and many
worthy things. Still see a few old digital museum pieces in random corners,
but hardly a trace of Fup and her glorious era.

------
aric
Similarly, behind every good ship is a trusty Ship's Cat. ( _...and often
whiskey too._ )

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship's_cat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship's_cat)

------
laumars
Cats aren't just great for the distillery; nothing makes me more content than
having one of my two cats curled up on my lap while I sip a scotch and watch
something nerdy on TV.

~~~
fidotron
Anyone that can genetically modify one to have fur but not leave it everywhere
stands to make a killing though.

~~~
ecdavis
Devon Rexes leave less hair behind than humans, in my experience.

------
hyp0
Why do they get fewer mice now? Because the grain more securely stored? More
effective poisons? Fewer mice in the region?

Funfact: unlike horses and dogs, cats were only domesticated once, and spread
with agriculture (to protect stored grain from mice).

~~~
eru
It's not even clear that man domesticated cat. It seems more likely the other
way around.

~~~
delecti
Additionally there's evidence that man didn't initially domesticate dogs.
Rather, wolves that were more compatible with humans could get closer and
benefit from the interaction, leading to more domestication and closer
integration, etc., until dogs.

Of course _since_ then we've done all manner of absurd things to the species
(as adorable as some people find them, inflicting pugs upon wolves was
terribly insulting).

------
suprgeek
"Had a look at him. Thought, 'Yep.' Gave him a few strokes, and thought he was
a friendly lookin' cat. Held him for a wee while. Decided, 'Right. He's the
one.' "

That line stayed with me long after I finished reading the piece - Long live
the Scots.

------
benmarks
Had the pleasure of meeting Elijah on a two day work trip to LEX. Airport
cabbie drove me to Woodford, dropped me off, and didn't charge to wait while I
toured. Elijah was entirely indifferent to my presence.

Aside from Charleston, Lexington is one of the friendliest places I've been in
the States. Highly recommend the distillery tours as well as the air museum.

------
Cuuugi
I'm not a cat guy, but they definitely serve their purpose. Nice story.

------
lvs
RIP Peat.

------
likeclockwork
This is a fluff piece.

~~~
whoopdedo
It wouldn't be if it were a sphynx cat.

------
lazylizard
i hear rice warehouses prefer to keep snakes. they eat the mice clean whereas
cats often leave carcasses about.

------
sk314
whisky + cats = the perfect internet story

------
joshuaheard
Distillery cat is watching you drink.

------
kevind23
There's no content in this article whatsoever. They used to need mousers, but
now they get max. 2 mice/year. So the distillery has a pet cat to keep
tradition alive. That's it?

~~~
hydrogen18
It's NPR, you should demand a refund.

------
trhway
symbiosis with cats and dogs carried our civilization through thousands of
years. Now we're forgetting it and just exterminating cats and dogs - yearly
only in US about 6-10M are put to death.

~~~
freehunter
Your comment (intentionally or not) makes it sound like humans are killing
cats and dogs simply for the sake of killing them. The problem is overbreeding
causing too many animals. We're not forgetting that these animals make great
pets, we're not killing them just for fun. There are limited options in how to
handle overpopulation.

~~~
trhway
>The problem is overbreeding causing too many animals.

it is we who, pretty arbitrary, decide that it is "too many" \- it means that
we're killing them pretty willfully ( just a step before "just for fun" and
"the sake of killing them")

We definitely didn't do anything to accommodate cats and dogs inside the
civilization they helped to build.

>There are limited options in how to handle overpopulation.

2 myths in one sentence - "limited options" and "overpopulation"

~~~
freehunter
It's not arbitrary, the number of house pets is limited to the number of
households that can have pets plus the number of animal shelters we have. Once
that number is exceeded, the options are set the animals free or find humane
ways to control the population. Depending on where you live, setting them free
could be a good option or it could be terrible. If the animals have no
survival instinct left, they will be left alone to starve to death or die from
sickness. In the city, they may be hit by cars, or they might attack other
pets. They might even make other pets sick by biting them. They can easily
become a nuisance in populated areas, although rural areas have a larger
domain for stray animals.

There's no one walking into your house saying "there's too many pets in the
world" and shooting Lassie. They only get put down when there is no one left
to take care of them.

If you think it's arbitrary, why don't you adopt every homeless pet? If you
can't do that, then you have to accept that there is such a thing as
overpopulation, that we're there, and that there are limited options for how
to deal with the problem.

~~~
trhway
most of your post is basically speculation, except for the unfortunate reality
of cars hitting pets.

Fact-wise:

>There's no one walking into your house saying "there's too many pets in the
world" and shooting Lassie.

that is actually what happens when your violate your local pets per household
limit. As i said, human civilization policies toward cats and dogs is a circus
of arbitrary speculations.

~~~
CocaKoala
>they will be left alone to starve to death

Stray animals can absolutely starve to death.

>or die from sickness.

Stray animals can absolutely get sick and die.

>they might attack other pets.

Stray animals can absolutely get in fights with other animals, stray or
otherwise

>They might even make other pets sick by biting them.

Stray animals can absolute transmit disease through bites, again to other
strays or domestic pets.

>They can easily become a nuisance in populated areas

This seems reasonable; feral cat colonies aren't really an ideal selling point
for an area.

>although rural areas have a larger domain for stray animals.

This also seems reasonable; there's more space in rural areas for strays to
stake out a claim without bothering the human contingent.

Can you please explain which parts are "basically speculation" and why you
think they aren't based in fact?

edit: And I pretty regularly get notices from the shelter where I adopted my
cat, saying "We just rescued a large number of animals from a hoarder who was
unable to take care of them, please help us find homes for them"; even if the
shelter were a kill shelter, that's hardly the summary execution of the pet
for the transgression of the owner. This is sounding more like weird local
policy where you live (or speculation), as opposed to the fact you presented
it as.

~~~
trhway
it may happen that psychologically ill people among other things may do
hoarding, of pets among other things. No argument here. In general these
hoarding stories are just scarecrows. I personally knew an old lady with 17
cats in her apartment - it was wonderful - they followed you and around you
and played and sat around you like a living cloud. She took perfect care of
them, they were healthy and happy, the apartment was clean, etc... Another
case i personally know was a happy family with a bunch of children and 5
Chihuahua living in their own house - they were forced to give up one dog
because of the 4 dogs limit. Speaking about tough choice - how do you choose
which of members of your family to give up?

~~~
CocaKoala
That isn't a response to the question I asked; can you address the question?

And even the scenario you presented here is hardly the summary execution that
you listed as a fact previously; can you address that discrepancy?

~~~
trhway
>And even the scenario you presented here is hardly the summary execution that
you listed as a fact previously; can you address that discrepancy?

the dog was given up as the alternative was for it to be ultimately taken away
by Animal Control and probably euthanized there - the only difference here is
technical details - you mentioned shooting in your house and they use
injection on their premises.

~~~
CocaKoala
That still isn't a response to the question I asked; can you address that
question?

And choosing an animal to be given up and taken to a shelter and _possibly_
euthanized is nowhere near the same and shooting an animal on the premises.
And again, that's a city-level ordinance, not a governmental one; it in no way
applies to everybody, so I don't know why you're presenting it as inarguable
fact.

Edit: Honestly, the fact that I need to ask a question three times when it was
very clearly laid out indicates that you're just ignoring it, which I can only
assume means you don't actually have an answer. If you're interested in
actually having a discussion instead of just saying foolish things and
refusing to back them up, then please address my question; otherwise, you've
got some pretty messed up and honestly harmful ideas that you're proposing
here and I hope you're never in a position to enforce your beliefs on anything
else.

