Many thanks to all for their replies.
Atlantis, great find on the QFR item, I vaguely remember it, but it was much longer ago than I thought.
Reading it now, what I thiought was striking about that article was the way they simply pronounced upon the issue of pet transfusion with no reference to any scripture or argumentation at all - it was simply "improper" and a "violation" of God's law.
Then they go and introduce this idea of having "jurisdiction" over animals and being "responsible" for them, making sure they don't break Jehovah's law. The trouble with making stuff up on the fly like this is that it just heaps absurdity on to absurdity.
So, you're responsible for making sure your pet cat doesn't consume any blood in any food provided by you - but you will be aware that the cat may very well be supplementing its diet with mice - strictly on its own time of course. How should a God fearing Christian feel about this - surely, without doubt, it is incumbent upon him - having "responsibility and jurisdiction" for that animal - to take all reasonable measures to prevent such sinful and God-displeasing actions. Yes, the only righteous course would be to chaperone that animal at all times in order to prevent any mice-killing, or to observe the proper bleeding of the prey at the kill.
Fine, upstanding Christians who, perhaps live on a farm and keep working dogs for hunting rats, foxes and other vermin undoubtedly have an obligation before Jehovah to ensure that these activities are carried out by their animals in such a way that no blood is consumed. Likely, there is an Awake! magazine published in the last few years containing useful animal-training information in one of its articles.
And if any Christian ever finds himself in employment as the worker in a nature reserve, possibly actively managing dynamic populations of lions, antelopes and zebras, well, the mind boggles at what measures that brother would have to take in order to ensure his unblemished standing before Jehovah - certainly he could not allow the animals under his juridiction to continue with all that messy, bloody carnage and slaughter.
On a smaller scale, if a Witness has an exotic pet snake, sometimes fed mice and other small creatures, is he seriously expected to bleed those animals first, before feeding the snake?
The principle of Jurisdiction, so casually invoked in this QFR, is a legal concept, and creates an obligation upon the person having the jurisdiction to uphold and enforce the law in his jurisdiction, so none of what I've just suggested above is entirely fanciful - it all follows from the idiotic Watchtower reasoning on the matter.
Duncan.