Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: Cat Attack

  1. #21

    Default

    I have very little sympathy with cat owners who allow their cat to be exposed to the dangers of the world.

    Though I feel for the cat (and maybe a little for the irresponsible cat owner), I think that you personally need to think about your dogs and their well being. As has been mentioned, you can't be certain that the cat didn't obtain life-ending injuries before or after your dogs attacked. As such, your dogs may very well not be responsible for the cat's demise.

    I agree with the suggestion about making notes regarding the incident, but I would not attempt to make my dogs publicly liable for the event.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChoppaChop View Post
    Unless you are absolutely sure that you are speaking to the cats owner do not approach anyone about the incident.
    If you 100 percent sure of cats owner then yes,the right thing to do would be to tell them . Please make sure you explain to them clearly the facts of the incident.

    Facts are ; you were walking your dogs on lead. Stray cat was under overgrown bush on a public pathway . If any fault can be laid I would lay it on the cats owner for letting it wander.

    Are you certain it died because of the dogs ?
    If it dashed across the road after they let it go after having it for 30 seconds then how do we know it wasn't a car that may have ended puss's life?
    I would not tell another soul but take better precautions in the future.
    I say this as telling them wont bring the cat back & I am unsure if your dogs will get in trouble with the council. I do know if they where seen at fault yes they'd be labeled dangerous dogs & all that goes with that due to the ptevous attack.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    45

    Default

    I only know the bi-laws specific to my on area of Council, and would strongly encourage you to look it up in your own area regarding this. It will be on your Council's website under dangerous dog legislation — perhaps, not in plain site, but follow the links until you get to the actual written legislation on dangerous dogs.

    In my area, dogs can't be declared dangerous for attacking a "natural prey item" (or something along those lines). In layman's terms, if you're walking your dogs and a cat/hare/possum runs across their path, and they kill it, they can't be declared dangerous for that act. But, there's also legislation regarding owner responsibility when on/off lead, so, I'm not sure what would take preference in that instance.

    (My apologies for not being able to be more specific. When I studied the legislation, it wasn't in relation to cat killing, so, I only have some recollection of the legislation regarding it.)

    In terms of what you do... If it were me, I wouldn't tell them. I'd feel horrible for it, but, I wouldn't be putting my dogs at risk just for the sake of their emotional closure. You had your dogs on lead; they were letting their cat free roam. The onus for their cat's safety was on them. If it wasn't your dogs, it could have just as easily been a car, or some bait, or a million other horrible things. RIP kitty.

    What a horrible thing to have happened I hope you and your dogs are okay.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Good grief. People, like it or lump it cats are allowed to wander freely in most states of Australia! The cat was sitting in a bush minding its own business. It was free to do so.

    If your dogs really only grabbed hold of the cat for 30 seconds then it was possible that it was not them that caused its death. However, and that is a BIG however, I suspect you believe they did kill the cat and I suspect that if the time they had hold of the cat was only 30 seconds then it must have been a very aggressive 30 seconds or they savaged the cat for far longer than 30 seconds.

    It is YOUR responsibility to report exactly what happened to the cat's owners. You owe it to them, yourself and the cat. If the cat has no bite wounds, then I am sure the owners will not accept that it was your dogs that killed it.

    I understand that many people are not cat lovers, but for so many of you to write off the cat's life in such a way with your comments is horrifying.

    Lets just hope that none of you end up with a dog in the same situation as the cat and where anonymous people on a forum advise the OP of a thread like this not to bother telling you becuase your dog should not have been out anyway. At least with a dog this part would be true!
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    Glitter009

    And as best I can tell in most of Australia, it is illegal for cat owners to allow their cats to roam off their property. So there are regulations. In my council, they've just introduced a bylaw to requrie cats be registered and microchipped too although I think it only applies to new cats / kittens not for cats that live here before the legislation was introduced.

    So cats are allowed to roam but it is illegal (in most places in Australia) and nobody enforces the law.
    Sorry, I have to correct this. No, it's not illegal. There are a few councils within some states that require cats to be contained during certain hours, and this is usually through the night only.

    For the most part, there are no restrictions on cats roaming across Australian States and LGAs.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Anne, it really doesn't have anything to do with callously writing off the life of the cat. You made a good point in saying "It was free to do so." In my opinion, the point is that it was free, by choice of its owners.

    If I own a dog, horse, cow, sheep, or just about anything else, it's my responsibility to keep it contained so that it doesn't get injured out in the big wide world, and that it doesn't hurt or inconvenience anybody else.

    If I own smaller animals like birds, rats, guinea pigs, reptiles, rabbits, ferrets etc. then it's my job to keep them contained so that they are safe at all times. If I'm not prepared to have a suitable cage/pen/yard for my pets, why bother keeping them at all?

    Why do cats fall into a different category, in terms of their safety, or the owners' responsibility regarding it? If the animal under the bush had been a guinea pig, and the dogs had grabbed it and shaken it until it died, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that it was the guinea pig owners' responsibility for the guinea pig to not be in a place where a dog could get to it. Why is it different for a cat? And, if that were the case, there definitely wouldn't be any fear that the dogs would be under investigation by the Council, because it was the cavie's owners' responsibility to keep it safe.

    Cats do all sort of damage when allowed to roam — they are massively destructive to our native endemic wildlife, they spread disease, and they roam into places that other people don't want them to, like gardens and backyards that don't belong to them. Why should cat owners be allowed to consider their domestic household pet so differently from dog owners, or any other type of pet?

    I certainly wouldn't be letting Fluffy the olive python out the door first thing in the morning, and saying, "Be good! Come back for the dinner bell!". And, when people came knocking on my door saying their small cat/rabbit/child had been eaten by Fluffy, saying, "Good grief! He's a snake, he needs his freedom!" Bollocks. He needs to be in his enclosure, where he is fed, watered, kept safe, and isn't harming or inconveniencing others. Why are cats any different from Fluffy?

    The risk the cat owners take in letting their cat free range, rather than having him inside or having a cat run, is that it might get hurt, or even killed. The OPs on-lead dogs should not have to pay for the cat owners' ill-regard for their animal's safety.

    This is why I feel the OP isn't obligated to tell the owners of the cat, particularly if it endangers her dogs, even though she was doing the right thing, and they were on-lead. JMO.
    Last edited by Kristy_07; 03-22-2011 at 07:35 PM. Reason: retraction of assumptive statement, for Anne

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Moggill, Queensland
    Posts
    697

    Default

    I know many people that shoot any cat that enters their property. Feral cats are a pest and are destroyed. Many pet cats have no collar or their collars are hard to see due to fur. I think it's disgusting when cat owners have a whinge about cars and dogs scaring or killing their cats, especially when the cat is getting into said dog's yard or sitting on the road!

    Don't get me wrong, I love cats. I just think a lot of cat owners should take some responsibility for their animals, and I applaud those owners that already do and keep their animals confined.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Please spare me the lecture Kristy and climb down off that horse lest you hurt yourself.

    I am well aware of the damage cats do and I have never said how I stand on the subject of cats being contained or allowed to roam.

    The fact is the cat is free to do so BY LAW. I don't care if you think it is right or wrong, and that goes for any law, it is LAW.

    I am not sure how old you are, but many years ago, dogs did not need to be contained and many people did not contain them. It wasn't an act of irresponsibility. It wasn't an act of stupidity. It was standard and acceptable practice and it was not against the law.

    In this day and age, it is legislated that we keep our dogs confined and so they are. As I pointed out though, it is not law that cats are contained and until it is, and education campaigns are commenced, cats are freely allowed to be in most public places.

    For your added information, I will have you know that my cat is contained and I personally would not have a cat roaming freely. However, if I did allow a cat to roam I would be well within my rights and the law to do so. I simply look at an issue objectively, and not subjectively, and it might be a good thing for you to learn to do.

    I take exception to your post and your applied assumption that I, and other cat owners, are stupid or ignorant and believe that cats should be allowed to destroy our native animals or create havoc in neighbourhoods. Next time, before jumping to your assumptions, it might be wise to find out what the other person's beliefs actually are, and regardless of what you or I believe, a cat is now DEAD even though it was doing what it is freely allowed to do and people in this thread are advocating deceit and a pleading of ignorance instead of facing up to the responsible ownership of a dog and the dog's actions!

    As I said in an earlier post today - it all comes down to personal values and ethics. Sometimes copping it on the chin is the hardest option, but that doesn't mean we should use any excuse (such as the belief that the cat should not be there in the first place) to deny our responsibilites in life.
    Last edited by Anne; 03-22-2011 at 07:35 PM.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    45

    Default

    I'm sorry you've taken what I posted in a personal manner, Anne. While I referenced something you had said at the beginning of my post, the rest really had nothing to do with you or your views on cats roaming, which I'm not aware of, nor interested in searching for.

    This is really the only assumptive statement I made in my post:

    "Cats are no different, despite the attitude by the majority of cat owners."

    No worries, I've edited this as a retraction, for your sake. The rest is just my opinion about responsible ownership of free roaming cats, which I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to express in a thread about a free roaming cats.

    As for the law, I never suggested that cats weren't allowed to roam free by law. By law, I can own a totally untrained, annoying, excitable, fear aggressive, dominant entire male dog and let it off lead at the park every day, too. That doesn't mean it's the most responsible course of action I should take, for me, other people and their animals, or the dog. Yet, I imagine plenty of people here would argue with me fiercely if I said that's what I was doing and didn't care about the potential damage to be had.

    If, by law, the cat is allowed to roam free without the owners taking responsibility for its safety, then, the OP, walking her dogs in a public place, on-lead, has done no wrong according to the law, either. Legally, no one's at fault.

    But, knowing that this incident would have been quite emotionally upsetting for the OP to have been a part of, I can't see the cat's owners offering any kind of apology to the OP for their part in the matter and letting their cat roam. It's beyond me why the OP is expected to offer them the same courtesy, which could also put her dogs at risk of bias if there was a complaint made against them.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristy_07 View Post
    If, by law, the cat is allowed to roam free without the owners taking responsibility for its safety, then, the OP, walking her dogs in a public place, on-lead, has done no wrong according to the law, either. Legally, no one's at fault.
    Wrong. Regardless of what we feel or what ideology we follow or subscribe to, a dog that has attacked a cat is wrong according to the law.

    But, knowing that this incident would have been quite emotionally upsetting for the OP to have been a part of, I can't see the cat's owners offering any kind of apology to the OP for their part in the matter and letting their cat roam. It's beyond me why the OP is expected to offer them the same courtesy, which could also put her dogs at risk of bias if there was a complaint made against them.
    Because the owner of the cat is well within their law and although you or I might think they are wrong, they are not.

    Added to this is the fact that a cat is dead. This cat may have been a very much loved feline that was never allowed to roam and had accidently slipped out the door that morning for all you or I know.

    As I said, it pays to look at matters objectively. The facts are;
    -the cat was within the law
    -the cat was under a bush and not in the way of the dogs
    -the dogs attacked the cat and it was witnessed running off
    -the cat was found dead shortly after lying in the vicinty of where it ran off to

    The owner of the dogs that attacked the cat should inform the cat's owner of the events that occurred and they should expect that the cat's owner will be distressd at knowing their cat is dead.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •