In message , Baz
writes
Sacha wrote in :

On 2010-10-15 18:05:27 +0100, Alan said:

In message , Sacha
wrote
On 2010-10-15 12:58:39 +0100, Alan said:

In message , prb
wrote
Anti freeze des not deter cats, it kills them. A very painful
and nasty
death too. However much you hate cats, surely you don't really
want them dead?
That's the responsibility of the owner. A cat that is adequately
fed
by it's owner and kept under control wouldn't come into contact
with anti-freeze.

That is nonsensical, I'm afraid. Cats are hunters. Being fed by
the owner is neither here nor there and 'kept under control' can
only mean house arrest.


So is it responsible to keep such an animal in an urban environment?

Your irresponsible is someone else's pet. and keeping 6 cats or more
isn not yet illegal. Cats are not considered 'controllable' in law.
Causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is illegal and suggesting
the use of poison because anyone doesn't like others' pets is
disgusting. It's to be hoped next door's noisy, whining, screaming
child doesn't wander in and pick it up....in an urban environment.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon




Then it is time the law is changed, so that cats are considered
uncontrollable and the owners are accountable so that no child would be
accidentally poisened.
It is I agree disgusting to try to poison but not everyone shares that
point of view and will continue I think until the law has changed.
Why have an animal as a pet if it is uncontrollable?
Surely the word uncontrollable indicates that the animal should not be a
domestic pet and should be governed by law.

Baz
The law also protects wild animals
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha