Yes, it's impossible to stop a cat from coming and going. If only there was some way of putting a barrier in all the entrances and exits to a house so that animals couldn't get in or out unless the barrier was moved to one side.
So why is it that my two cats are perfectly happy to stay indoors then, eh?
They have not made a bolt for the door in the combined twenty two years I've had them.
I resent the implication that my two pets are in any way a nuisance to anyone.
Because it's nice and warm inside, they get fed, and plenty of places where they can have a kip without being disturbed.
Outside is cold, wet, and 'orrible. Put yourself in their place. Where would you choose to stay?
Quite right. They like their comfort, lazy buggers
But to say that it is 'impossible' to keep them inside is simply not true, that's all I was getting at.
Conditioning, training, that's what it's all about.
And please, no rubbish about cats being untrainable. Ours know their limits, will not beg for food nor jump on kitchen worksurfaces, and even understand the 'sit' command, even if their obedience tally is only about 70%....
Just a note on the legal position of cats with specific regard to trespass, from this link
CATS AND TRESPASS
The question of trespass by cats frequently arose and was often a matter for dispute between neighbours.
It had been the common belief that the cat could not be classified under the same jurisdiction as other pets which are judged to be trespassing when they enter land or premises where they have no authority to be; prosecution cases have been cited to uphold this view. An opposing view was taken by a judge dealing with a case, brought under the 1936 Public Health Act, against the owner of a cat which, it was said, had trespassed and caused damage. Judgement was given against the owner of the cat with costs.
Under the Public Health Act 1936, there had been provision for prosecutions to be brought when, in the view of the Local Authority, there was a "statutory nuisance" caused by "any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance". It was very unlikely that occasional straying by a cat could be described as being a nuisance, but repeated straying, or straying by several cats, had sometimes resulted in convictions. The local authority could also draw up by-laws preventing the keeping of animals where it would be prejudicial to health.
The situation regarding trespass was clarified in 1971 and cats once more became "free spirits" under the law. Cats were excluded from the definitions of "livestock" and of "cattle" under the Animals Act 1971, "they cannot be held guilty of trespass under civil law and, therefore, their owners or keepers cannot be liable for any damage done".
The Animals Act, 1971 had caused anxiety among cat owners. It concerned liability for damage caused by domestic animals straying on the highway - showing that the motorcar was well and truly a fact of modern life. To bring a case, a party had to prove that the owner had negligently allowed their pet to stray and this probably could not be proved in the case of cats - it was (and still is) accepted that cats are wanderers by nature. Aviary owners knew that it was up to them to secure their birds from marauding cats. Gardeners had (and still have) no redress when a cat dug up their plants. These people could be convicted of cruelty if in their rage they injured or killed their neighbour’s cat.
In very recent times a man was convicted for killing scores of neighbours' cats with cyanide-laced fish after the cats entered his garden. In 2003, a man was convicted of electrocuting his neighbour's 10 month old cat using a home made electric fence over his flower beds (in this case, the cat's owner, a young girl, found her pet with its mouth still smoking where it had been caught under the electric wire and tried to bit its way out). A former colleague of mine, knowing that nothing could be proved against him, even boasted of kidnapping neighbours' cats and abandoning them miles from home after they annoyed his birds. Unfortunately, the penalties are rarely severe enough to act as a deterrent and many people are seeking to make cat-owners more responsible for their cats' trespass.
From "Daily Mail" 8th October, 1946: It was held by Judge Crosthwaite at Liverpool County Court that the cat has a right to prowl. J. E. Withers tenant of a ground floor flat in St. George’s Road, Hightown, Liverpool, sought an injunction against her tenant of the flat above, to keep the cat under control and claimed damages. For Mrs. C.’s cat, it was said, got into Mrs. W. ‘s, fiat ate mincepies and fish, got on to a bed, and scratched the bedpost. For the plaintiff it was contended that a cat was in the same category as a dog, and it was the owner’s duty to keep it under control. For Mrs. C. it was argued that an owner was not liable for a cat’s actions "when trespassing and following its natural propensities." Judgement was given for Mrs. C. with costs.
From "The Smallholder": A Trespassing Cat. The injury to the poultry has been caused by the intrusion of a neighbour’s cat, Mrs. G. C. M. (2441 Warwick). For such any injury and however caused, the owner of the cat is not liable. There is no provision requiring that the owner of the cat should take steps to prevent the recurrence of this happening. A cat is an animal which has a propensity to roam and to do damage of this kind. The owner of the poultry is obliged to keep his poultry so that cats cannot have access to them. The owner of the cat need do nothing in the matter and he may ignore any claims made for any loss caused by his cat or cats.
Those who were interested in the Law regarding Animals generally were directed to the "Symposium on Animals and the Law" (Universities Federation for Animal Welfare) and "Animal Law" by Godrey Sandys-Winsch BA (published by Shaw and Sons) and a later publication, "Animals and the Law" by T. G. Field-Fisher, M.A. (ublished by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare). And, of course, to their solicitor.
See blueblade, I know that is the position of the law but I fundamentally disagree with it.
The idea that a cat is an uniquely-free spirited animal is a nonsense. It is this attitude, cemented in law, that contributes to this whole anti-cat thing.
And this impacts on cat owners. If a dog, or a rabbit or a guinea pig or a budgie 'gets out' and finds its way into a neighbour's garden, said owner is likely to take pity on it and try to return it to its owner. Yet if the same thing happens to a responsibly-kept indoor cat (a cat which will thus have no real means of defending itself), it's likely to be abused for the heinous crime of crying in panic to the first human it sees.
Yes, I appreciate that. But the hunting instinct is present in both. The way some people go on, you'd think dogs were saints and cats were the devil incarnate.
People would soon realise that dogs are not saints, if they'd seen them rip a fox to shreds on a hunt, as I've witnessed.
Oh absolutely, I agree. Some dogs can be trained up to be vicious killers, as seen in concealed dog-fight pits, hunting packs etc... but your average domestic dog is very easily confined to, say, a garden, and will probably live its whole life without killing anything at all.
Whereas a cat *does* go out hunting, and usually has the freedom to roam in hedgerows, copses etc.
Yes. It would be very difficult to confine a cat to a back garden would it not?
Some cats are very satisifed to remanin indoors all day, and onlybe let out for toilet, but the vast majority relish the freedom, and it would make them miserable to be confined.
Yes. It would be very difficult to confine a cat to a back garden would it not?
Some cats are very satisifed to remanin indoors all day, and onlybe let out for toilet, but the vast majority relish the freedom, and it would make them miserable to be confined.
But that is all conditioning. If you set out the ground rules as a kitten, they're fine. If you let them do as they please, what do you expect?
Think about the very first time people put cats out, typically as 16-week old or so kittens. The first time, and several after that, the cat sits at the door and whines to be let back in.
Eventually their instincts kick in and they go out exploring.
This, as far as I am concerned is neglect. How do you think a dog would turn out if you allowed it to do exactly what came naturally to it? How would a child turn out (indeed, this happens with feral children the length and breadth of the country).
What really frustrates me about cat 'haters' (and I am not including you in this category per se) is that they are all too willing to say they hate the creatures because of encroachment, then when you point out that many, many cats live perfectly happy lives as indoor cats, all of a sudden they're thinking of the animal's welfare and saying it's a free spirit etc.
I do wonder what a court would say if a child was hurt by an obvious trap...
"Well it shouldn't have been in my garden" I suspect wouldn't wash.
Im sure the judge would have the intellectual capacity to tell the difference between a human and a cat given that the former is more important than the latter.
Indeed. Like many irrational assumptions and opinions, if you ask people to note down on paper the objective reasons for their feelings, they are totally unable to articulate, any logical reason
Interesting. You seem to make this point despite many posters actually stating why the dislike cats. Whether you accept them as legimiate reasons is your issue, not ours. Its how we feel and if you cannot accept our answers then thats not our problem.
Some people on this thread seriously need to get a life.
If I (hypothetically) would find out that my toddler had been killed by inhaling/swallowing bleach because the neighbour who put it there in the first place was worried about some cat messing with their precious flower beds, I would sue them until they were completely ruined.
Unlike dogs, no domestic cat has ever mauled or killed a human being - get a grip.
I may not be the biggest fan of dogs because I was attacked by dogs twice when I was a child, but I've always firmly put the blame on their owners for not training them properly.
I would not dream of putting any kind of poison out there to deter them from being in my garden.
Some people on this thread seriously need to get a life.
If I (hypothetically) would find out that my toddler had been killed by inhaling/swallowing bleach because the neighbour who put it there in the first place was worried about some cat messing with their precious flower beds, I would sue them until they were completely ruined.
Unlike dogs, no domestic cat has ever mauled or killed a human being - get a grip.
I may not be the biggest fan of dogs because I was attacked by dogs twice when I was a child, but I've always firmly put the blame on their owners for not training them properly.
I would not dream of putting any kind of poison out there to deter them from being in my garden.
That's just so vicious it's unreal.
What I put in my lidded bins is my choice. If your hypothetical kid came and started raking through my buckets then the buck stops with the irresponsible parent. Thats whats wrong with this country- people not taking responsiblity and then blaming someone else for their ineptitude.
Some people on this thread seriously need to get a life.
If I (hypothetically) would find out that my toddler had been killed by inhaling/swallowing bleach because the neighbour who put it there in the first place was worried about some cat messing with their precious flower beds, I would sue them until they were completely ruined.
Unlike dogs, no domestic cat has ever mauled or killed a human being - get a grip.
I may not be the biggest fan of dogs because I was attacked by dogs twice when I was a child, but I've always firmly put the blame on their owners for not training them properly.
I would not dream of putting any kind of poison out there to deter them from being in my garden.
That's just so vicious it's unreal.
Meant to say cats have been known to suffocate babies by sitting on their faces whilst they sleep so you are wrong with that point also.
so in sum
1. Cats can and have killed humans
2. Hypothetical kids should not be allowed to roam free into other peoples property
3. Bleach in a closed bin is not poison.
Im sure the judge would have the intellectual capacity to tell the difference between a human and a cat given that the former is more important than the latter.
Whoosh. Thankfully Enfant Terrible grasped the point, so I don't need to explain it...
If I (hypothetically) would find out that my toddler had been killed by inhaling/swallowing bleach because the neighbour who put it there in the first place was worried about some cat messing with their precious flower beds, I would sue them until they were completely ruined.
Give the man a prize. Spot on.
Meant to say cats have been known to suffocate babies by sitting on their faces whilst they sleep so you are wrong with that point also.
So you equate an accidental (and actually affectionate, if lethal) mistake to a vicious mauling do you? Kind of sums up the kind of argument we're having to deal with here.
I dont trust anyone who sees cats as more important or advanced than humans or people who treat cats as if they are human.
Once again, putting words in people's mouths. I don't see anyone here claiming that. Why don't you actually answer the points I gave on the previous page rather than regurgitating your previous points in a desperate attempt at truth by repetition?
As I have said before, I am a responsible owner, and if one of my cats ever found itself in a neighbour's garden it would be an accident, the animal would be terrified and would simply want to get back home (I know this because it happened, once). What the hell gives you the right to lay a trap for such an innocent? Indeed, since animals get out all the time, you could end up taking out a dog, rabbit or guinea pig. Doubtless this would affect you more than if a cat died as a result of your actions.
2. Hypothetical kids should not be allowed to roam free into other peoples property
But they do. All the time. And that's the problem. Irresponsible and nasty moves like that end in disaster.
Anyway, I'm going to do what you do now and ask: what exactly are you doing on this thread? You've repeatedly stated that you merely 'dislike' cats, for irritation reasons rather than anything else. You don't claim to have a "deep and bitter hatred", so why on earth are you trying to justify such responses?
So you equate an accidental (and actually affectionate, if lethal) mistake to a vicious mauling do you? Kind of sums up the kind of argument we're having to deal with here.
Once again, putting words in people's mouths. Why don't you actually answer the points I gave on the previous page rather than regurgitating your previous points in a desperate attempt at truth by repetition?
But they do. All the time. And that's the problem. Irresponsible and nasty moves like that end in disaster.
Anyway, I'm going to do what you do now and ask: what exactly are you doing on this thread? You've repeatedly stated that you merely 'dislike' cats, for irritation reasons rather than anything else. You don't claim to have a "deep and bitter hatred", so why on earth are you trying to justify such responses?
1. Death by pet is death by pet
2. Im not putting words in anyones mouth
3. Its the parents responsiblity to look after the kid, if they dont its their fault
4. I am on this thread because this is a discussion board. You know that right? And with the powers of sight you will see that no one one here has such a bitter hatred towards cats.
Now my questions
5. Why do you get so wound up by my posts?
6. Why cant you accept that some people just dont like cats? Its not rocket science
I dont trust anyone who sees cats as more important or advanced than humans or people who treat cats as if they are human.
3. Its the parents responsiblity to look after the kid, if they dont its their fault
I look forward to that one being tested...
4. I am on this thread because this is a discussion board. You know that right?
So why do you try to shoo away people who disagree with you from threads you agree with then?
And with the powers of sight you will see that no one one here has such a bitter hatred towards cats.
In which case, your answer to this thread should be; "we don't".
5. Why do you get so wound up by my posts?
Because you state your case, over and over, don't listen to anyone else, broadside any attempt to engage your opinions and turn it into a "whoever disagrees with me must be some sort of loon" thread. That enough to be getting on with?
But you're right. I get collared every time and I really should just work out where the ignore button is.
6. Why cant you accept that some people just dont like cats? Its not rocket science
Some people on this thread seriously need to get a life.
If I (hypothetically) would find out that my toddler had been killed by inhaling/swallowing bleach because the neighbour who put it there in the first place was worried about some cat messing with their precious flower beds, I would sue them until they were completely ruined.
Charming.
If someone wants to put bleach in their garden that's their decision - why should anyone have the right to stop them?
Why should they be blamed for the death/injury of a toddler who isn't their responsibility? Clearly the parents of the toddler would really be to blame for not properly watching their child.
Never in my life has a child just randomly wandered into our garden. In fact I don't even think a child has in any other house in the neighbourhood
A small child will often come into a garden to retrieve a ball etc. The parent is responsible for teaching the child that this is wrong, but that typically wouldn't happen until it's happened once.
That once may be enough for disaster to strike if everyone started leaving poison lying around in the hope that some unwitting animal might lap it up.
(And don't give me that "I don't hope the animal will take it" -- if that were the case you wouldn't leave it there).
If someone wants to put bleach in their garden that's their decision - why should anyone have the right to stop them?
Why should they be blamed for the death/injury of a toddler who isn't their responsibility? Clearly the parents of the toddler would really be to blame for not properly watching their child.
So where does it stop? Leaving out huge bear traps for the dog that comes in from next door?
These are quite clearly traps laid out -- otherwise there would be no point in doing it.
Comments
So why is it that my two cats are perfectly happy to stay indoors then, eh?
They have not made a bolt for the door in the combined twenty two years I've had them.
I resent the implication that my two pets are in any way a nuisance to anyone.
Because it's nice and warm inside, they get fed, and plenty of places where they can have a kip without being disturbed.
Outside is cold, wet, and 'orrible. Put yourself in their place. Where would you choose to stay?
Quite right. They like their comfort, lazy buggers
But to say that it is 'impossible' to keep them inside is simply not true, that's all I was getting at.
Conditioning, training, that's what it's all about.
And please, no rubbish about cats being untrainable. Ours know their limits, will not beg for food nor jump on kitchen worksurfaces, and even understand the 'sit' command, even if their obedience tally is only about 70%....
I really should have added a :rolleyes: to that post, shouldn't I?
I perhaps should have read your post more thoroughly -- sorry
The idea that a cat is an uniquely-free spirited animal is a nonsense. It is this attitude, cemented in law, that contributes to this whole anti-cat thing.
And this impacts on cat owners. If a dog, or a rabbit or a guinea pig or a budgie 'gets out' and finds its way into a neighbour's garden, said owner is likely to take pity on it and try to return it to its owner. Yet if the same thing happens to a responsibly-kept indoor cat (a cat which will thus have no real means of defending itself), it's likely to be abused for the heinous crime of crying in panic to the first human it sees.
And that can't be right.
Oh absolutely, I agree. Some dogs can be trained up to be vicious killers, as seen in concealed dog-fight pits, hunting packs etc... but your average domestic dog is very easily confined to, say, a garden, and will probably live its whole life without killing anything at all.
Whereas a cat *does* go out hunting, and usually has the freedom to roam in hedgerows, copses etc.
Because it is allowed to.
Yes. It would be very difficult to confine a cat to a back garden would it not?
Some cats are very satisifed to remanin indoors all day, and onlybe let out for toilet, but the vast majority relish the freedom, and it would make them miserable to be confined.
But that is all conditioning. If you set out the ground rules as a kitten, they're fine. If you let them do as they please, what do you expect?
Think about the very first time people put cats out, typically as 16-week old or so kittens. The first time, and several after that, the cat sits at the door and whines to be let back in.
Eventually their instincts kick in and they go out exploring.
This, as far as I am concerned is neglect. How do you think a dog would turn out if you allowed it to do exactly what came naturally to it? How would a child turn out (indeed, this happens with feral children the length and breadth of the country).
What really frustrates me about cat 'haters' (and I am not including you in this category per se) is that they are all too willing to say they hate the creatures because of encroachment, then when you point out that many, many cats live perfectly happy lives as indoor cats, all of a sudden they're thinking of the animal's welfare and saying it's a free spirit etc.
Make your mind up!!!
Im sure the judge would have the intellectual capacity to tell the difference between a human and a cat given that the former is more important than the latter.
Interesting. You seem to make this point despite many posters actually stating why the dislike cats. Whether you accept them as legimiate reasons is your issue, not ours. Its how we feel and if you cannot accept our answers then thats not our problem.
If I (hypothetically) would find out that my toddler had been killed by inhaling/swallowing bleach because the neighbour who put it there in the first place was worried about some cat messing with their precious flower beds, I would sue them until they were completely ruined.
Unlike dogs, no domestic cat has ever mauled or killed a human being - get a grip.
I may not be the biggest fan of dogs because I was attacked by dogs twice when I was a child, but I've always firmly put the blame on their owners for not training them properly.
I would not dream of putting any kind of poison out there to deter them from being in my garden.
That's just so vicious it's unreal.
What I put in my lidded bins is my choice. If your hypothetical kid came and started raking through my buckets then the buck stops with the irresponsible parent. Thats whats wrong with this country- people not taking responsiblity and then blaming someone else for their ineptitude.
I dont trust anyone who sees cats as more important or advanced than humans or people who treat cats as if they are human.
Meant to say cats have been known to suffocate babies by sitting on their faces whilst they sleep so you are wrong with that point also.
so in sum
1. Cats can and have killed humans
2. Hypothetical kids should not be allowed to roam free into other peoples property
3. Bleach in a closed bin is not poison.
Hope all is clear now
Whoosh. Thankfully Enfant Terrible grasped the point, so I don't need to explain it...
Give the man a prize. Spot on.
So you equate an accidental (and actually affectionate, if lethal) mistake to a vicious mauling do you? Kind of sums up the kind of argument we're having to deal with here.
Once again, putting words in people's mouths. I don't see anyone here claiming that. Why don't you actually answer the points I gave on the previous page rather than regurgitating your previous points in a desperate attempt at truth by repetition?
As I have said before, I am a responsible owner, and if one of my cats ever found itself in a neighbour's garden it would be an accident, the animal would be terrified and would simply want to get back home (I know this because it happened, once). What the hell gives you the right to lay a trap for such an innocent? Indeed, since animals get out all the time, you could end up taking out a dog, rabbit or guinea pig. Doubtless this would affect you more than if a cat died as a result of your actions.
But they do. All the time. And that's the problem. Irresponsible and nasty moves like that end in disaster.
Anyway, I'm going to do what you do now and ask: what exactly are you doing on this thread? You've repeatedly stated that you merely 'dislike' cats, for irritation reasons rather than anything else. You don't claim to have a "deep and bitter hatred", so why on earth are you trying to justify such responses?
1. Death by pet is death by pet
2. Im not putting words in anyones mouth
3. Its the parents responsiblity to look after the kid, if they dont its their fault
4. I am on this thread because this is a discussion board. You know that right? And with the powers of sight you will see that no one one here has such a bitter hatred towards cats.
Now my questions
5. Why do you get so wound up by my posts?
6. Why cant you accept that some people just dont like cats? Its not rocket science
Never in my life has a child just randomly wandered into our garden. In fact I don't even think a child has in any other house in the neighbourhood
What are you talking about?
So what was the purpose of the following then:
I look forward to that one being tested...
So why do you try to shoo away people who disagree with you from threads you agree with then?
In which case, your answer to this thread should be; "we don't".
Because you state your case, over and over, don't listen to anyone else, broadside any attempt to engage your opinions and turn it into a "whoever disagrees with me must be some sort of loon" thread. That enough to be getting on with?
But you're right. I get collared every time and I really should just work out where the ignore button is.
Show me where I have not accepted that.
Charming.
If someone wants to put bleach in their garden that's their decision - why should anyone have the right to stop them?
Why should they be blamed for the death/injury of a toddler who isn't their responsibility? Clearly the parents of the toddler would really be to blame for not properly watching their child.
A small child will often come into a garden to retrieve a ball etc. The parent is responsible for teaching the child that this is wrong, but that typically wouldn't happen until it's happened once.
That once may be enough for disaster to strike if everyone started leaving poison lying around in the hope that some unwitting animal might lap it up.
(And don't give me that "I don't hope the animal will take it" -- if that were the case you wouldn't leave it there).
So where does it stop? Leaving out huge bear traps for the dog that comes in from next door?
These are quite clearly traps laid out -- otherwise there would be no point in doing it.