Alan wrote in :

In message , Gordon H
wrote



"Cat" and "control" in the same sentence?


It's perfectly easy to control a cat it's just that many anti-social
arseholes who own them don't bother.

Even in this thread it suggested that if we don't want them on our
property we can to put up fencing, netting, electric wires, cages etc.

What's wrong with owners being responsible for the animals they wish to
keep and doing the same to confine the cats to their own property?

I'll also bet that these same people who are not prepared to spend any
money controlling their pets will be the first to blame others if they
get poisoned or injured on other people's property.



Amen to that.
I could not have put it better.

Baz

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

Alan wrote in
:

In message , Sacha
wrote
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.

Your reply just confirms that it impossible to get a cat owner to take
responsible for their cats and it is evident that humane ways of
deterring cats from shitting in other peoples gardens doesn't work.
The ONLY recourse is obviously a little dose of their own medicine
containing something that will keep them away for good.

It's to be hoped next door's noisy, whining, screaming child doesn't
wander in and pick it up....in an urban environment.

That whining screaming kid is more likely to catch something nasty
from picking up the cat shit. It's your attitude that stinks. You
favour the actions of irresponsible cat owners over the health of a
child.


You know what Alan,
You have some very valid points apart from the insults and your willingness
to endanger human lives.

Baz

Alan wrote:
In message , Frank
Booth Snr wrote
Alan wrote:
In message , Frank
Booth Snr wrote

Simple solution. Train your cat to use the toilet..

Er, it's the animals belonging to other people that is the problem. If
responsible cat owned trained their cats there wouldn't be a problem but
the majority of cat owned are irresponsible and expect other to clean up
the s**t from their pets.

So in that case why not train their cats to use your toilet then?

Why is it that anti-social cat owner consider it is other people's
responsibility to look after, or train, their animals?

I was being ironic. If you know anything about cats, you'd appreciate
that it's very difficult if not impossible to train a cat to do anything
other than eat the food you provide it with. I cited Youtube more as a
humorous aside, because I don't seriously believe cat owners can train
their pets to use a WC, although there's no shortage of videos showing
cats doing just that. :-)

Pete wrote:
The later tom plantings are still flowering and fruiting in the (unheated)
greenhouse !

/Late/ tomatoes? Mine all went in in Feb-Apr, and they seem to have had a
recent new lease of life (since I noticed the watering had been turned off
and got it put back on!) - the whole greenhouse is full of little yellow
flowers again.

Nick has also made it almost impossible for me to get to anything in the
greenhouse by filling it full of his delicate (!) plants. There is a huge
tangerine tree blocking the entrance to the main greenhouse atm. :-(

Gordon H wrote:
Have you ever owned a cat? ;-)

I thought cats generally owned people.

Hi Baz, Ive read with interest all the replies and I'm not getting involved with the debate on cats but out of interest having tried all the normal deterents, there is one which works but you do need to live near a zoo and its to buy a bag (locally here used to be £5 a bag) of LION poo. Being very territorial the cats wont invade the 'lions territory' for obvious reasons and the effects are quite long lasting, especially if kept covered from the rain which eventually dilutes the 'scent'.
hope this helps, best wishes Lannerman

In message , Sacha
wrote



In this instance, 'uncontrollable' appears to be interpreted as can't
be confined to one garden. Not as "is a ravening beast intent on
wrecking the lives of others by doing what comes naturally". IOW,
don't blame the cat. Or the wandering child.

But the owners can easily confine their cats to their own property -
they just don't want to spend the money doing so.

Are you still advocating feeding cat shit to children?

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Sacha wrote in :

On 2010-10-15 19:24:57 +0100, Baz said:

Sacha wrote in :
snip

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.

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

In this instance, 'uncontrollable' appears to be interpreted as can't
be confined to one garden. Not as "is a ravening beast intent on
wrecking the lives of others by doing what comes naturally". IOW,
don't blame the cat. Or the wandering child.

Yes, just got a bit carried away.
Not controllable and uncontrollable have 2 different meanings.
Ok. I arent the sharpest knife in the box and have difficulty reading and
writing but I know I have misread the control bit. My mistake.

Baz

In message , Sacha
wrote
On 2010-10-15 22:56:34 +0100, Baz said:

Sacha wrote in :
snip
In this instance, 'uncontrollable' appears to be interpreted as can't
be confined to one garden. Not as "is a ravening beast intent on
wrecking the lives of others by doing what comes naturally". IOW,
don't blame the cat. Or the wandering child.
Yes, just got a bit carried away.
Not controllable and uncontrollable have 2 different meanings.
Ok. I arent the sharpest knife in the box and have difficulty reading and
writing but I know I have misread the control bit. My mistake.
Baz

;-)) This subject certainly arouses strong feelings, doesn't it?
Perhaps there should be a move towards limiting the number of cats and
dogs per household according to the space for them or where the owner
lives. I suppose everyone would have a natural tendency to worry that
these are somewhat draconian measures but it's obvious that the few
people who really over-do the pet numbers cause a lot of annoyance,
worry and even distress to neighbours. Just the other day a woman who
was keeping 100 dogs had most of them removed. She was terribly
distressed. But her neighbours were driven nearly mad by the constant
barking from her property and finally, the authorities had to act. It
would have been kinder to *everybody* if that situation had never been
able to develop.


The problem isn't the one person who has a hundred dogs/cats. It's the
50 cats per street all living in houses where the owners have decided
that they don't want a cat friendly environment and the front gardens
are concrete drive ways and the back gardens put down to flag stones or
decking. If you happen to be one of the few who decide that they may
want some flowers in the front garden then it becomes a toilet for
dozens of these animals.

Yesterday I weeded a little strip of soil adjacent to a hedge in my
front garden. This morning there is one pile of exposed shit and three
other soil disturbances where I bet there will be buried shit.

Unfortunately cat owners always fail to take responsibility for their
actions in keeping cats in inappropriate urban conditions and ,as seen
in this thread, laugh it off by saying if you don't want my cat in your
garden then it's you problem not mine as I cannot be bothered to control
my animal. I bet all of them have trained "their" cat not to shit in
the house unless it's in a litter tray, but will then deny that a cat
can be trained.

I'm surprised that readers of these forums who have young children are
not worried by the amount of cat shit in their own gardens. Do they keep
their children indoors to protect them from eating the fruit and veg in
the gardens that has been sprayed by every passing tom cat?

This year I didn't bother picking the low hanging fruit on my cherry
tree after seeing two cats within the space of an hour spray the bottom
two or three foot of cherries.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In message , Christina Websell
writes

"Larry Stoter" wrote in message
...
Baz wrote:



6. Many white cats are congenitally (?) deaf (which shows that many cat
breeders know as much about breeding cats as Crufts and dog breeders
know about breeding dogs). If your particular problem is a white moggy,
you may find that ultrasonic scarers don't work ....

Yes, many white cats are deaf, so the scarer will not work on them, but you
are hardly likely to have lots of white deaf cats in your garden, are you?
I take exception to your opinion about cat & dog breeders and more so about
Cruft's judges.
You know a Cruft's judge personally? I do, and she has the highest ethics
in the world otherwise she would not be my best friend.
Tina





I know lots of people who have judged at Crufts and who breed dogs and I
wouldn't give you tuppence for the ethics of many of them
--
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

In message , Gordon H
writes
In message , Alan
writes
In message , Christina Websell
wrote

You know a Cruft's judge personally? I do, and she has the highest ethics
in the world otherwise she would not be my best friend.
Tina

Anyone with high ethics would have resigned from being a Craft's judge
years ago when it became public knowledge that the organisation
supported the long term in-breeding of animals.

Or you stay with it and try to change things from the inside.
There's a lot of money to be made from breeding deformed dogs and
showing them. I feel heartily sorry for the snuffling wretches.
Not really. Most money is made by puppy farmers which is a different
matter all together.
--
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

In message , Larry Stoter
writes
Christina Websell wrote:

"Larry Stoter" wrote in message
...
Baz wrote:



6. Many white cats are congenitally (?) deaf (which shows that many cat
breeders know as much about breeding cats as Crufts and dog breeders
know about breeding dogs). If your particular problem is a white moggy,
you may find that ultrasonic scarers don't work ....

Yes, many white cats are deaf, so the scarer will not work on them, but you
are hardly likely to have lots of white deaf cats in your garden, are you?

Cats being territorial, I was making the specific point that, in this
case, if the nuisance is a white cat (which was not specified), an
ultrasonic scarer might be a waste of money.

I take exception to your opinion about cat & dog breeders and more so about
Cruft's judges.
You know a Cruft's judge personally? I do, and she has the highest ethics
in the world otherwise she would not be my best friend.
Tina

I didn't say anything about Crufts judges and have no doubt that many of
them are responsible and ethical people ....

However, if dog and cat breeders are so good and ethical, why do so many
breeds have problems with congenital diseases - like white cats being
deaf, red setters having hip problems, bull dogs having breathing
difficulties, etc?

And why do (did?) Crufts breed standards require dogs to be mutilated?

Larry
Which breed standards are you referring to?

--
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

In message , Alan
writes
In message , Frank
Booth Snr wrote

Simple solution. Train your cat to use the toilet..

Er, it's the animals belonging to other people that is the problem. If
responsible cat owned trained their cats there wouldn't be a problem
but the majority of cat owned are irresponsible and expect other to
clean up the s**t from their pets.

Oh not this crap again :-(
--
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

In message , Alan
writes
In message , Frank
Booth Snr wrote
Alan wrote:
In message , Frank
Booth Snr wrote

Simple solution. Train your cat to use the toilet..

Er, it's the animals belonging to other people that is the problem. If
responsible cat owned trained their cats there wouldn't be a problem but
the majority of cat owned are irresponsible and expect other to clean up
the s**t from their pets.

So in that case why not train their cats to use your toilet then?

Why is it that anti-social cat owner consider it is other people's
responsibility to look after, or train, their animals?


Because they couldn't give a shit?
--
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