In message , Alan
writes
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.


No it is your responsibility as the person who deliberately laid down a
poisonous substance to inflict harm on an animal.
--
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 , Pete
writes


"Alan" wrote in message
...
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.


True - like all other domesticated creatures, they should be confined
to their owners property.
Why should cats exceptionally be allowed to roam without breaking the law ?

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
They are not "exceptionally" allowed to do anything. There is
(somewhere) a list of controllable and uncontrollable animals. Dogs (and
I think goats IIRC) in the former, cats in the latter.
--
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 , 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

In message , Sacha
writes
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.
There was a thread recently on garden bonfires. They too are annoying
and irritating especially in an urban environment. They can also produce
toxins and smoke which can upset people with respiratory problems.
Perhaps we should ban them as well - a sort of quid pro quo?
--
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 , 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?

How do they protect them from bird shit?
Snip
--
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 , hugh
] wrote


How do they protect them from bird shit?
Snip

What birds?

Around my way the bird population has almost disappeared. The cat
population has increased.

Bird shit is possibly unavoidable but cat shit isn't. The responsible
cat owner could fence and cage in their own property to stop their pets
shitting in other people's gardens.

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

In message ,
writes
Gordon H wrote:
Have you ever owned a cat? ;-)

I thought cats generally owned people.

Exactly my point. The only way they can be controlled is by caging
them in some way.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message , Alan
writes
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?

It could never happen in a Police state.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message , Gordon H
wrote
In message ,
writes
Gordon H wrote:
Have you ever owned a cat? ;-)

I thought cats generally owned people.

Exactly my point. The only way they can be controlled is by caging
them in some way.

Exactly!! Socially responsible cat ownership means that you don't annoy
your neighbours - and I don't next mean just next door.

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

In message , Gordon H
wrote

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

It could never happen in a Police state.

Godwin's law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

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

In article ,
says...
The responsible
cat owner could fence and cage in their own property to stop their pets
shitting in other people's gardens.



I wondered about collecting the said cat deposist and placing them
outside the front door of the cat owners we have around us.
(Fortunately, being rural we only have a few close neighbours and only 2
with cats).

I would probably be prosecuted for something!

Roger T

In message , Alan
writes
In message , Gordon H
wrote

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

It could never happen in a Police state.

Godwin's law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

8-)
As a stand-up comic remarked recently:
"Charlie Chaplin had a distinctive moustache, then along came H*tl*r and
ruined everything".
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In alt.flame Alan wrote:
In message , Sacha
wrote

[..]

Are you still advocating feeding cat shit to children?

You know, I always kinda figured that there were even flamewars on
gardening newsgroups. Still, it's a quite different thing to actually
see one. Sort of like how, intellectually, you know that (e.g.) Robert
Forster has to be a real person, but you can't help but have that
unmistakable "wow!" feeling when you actually encounter him in the flesh.

--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Now, the simple truth is those Democrats who are here are probably here
because like millions I've met across the country, they have found they can
no longer follow the leadership of the Republican Party, which has taken them
down a course that leads to ruin." -- Ronald Reagan in 1986, campaigning
on behalf of Republican candidate
Jim Santini

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:56:48 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , Gordon H
wrote
In message ,
writes
Gordon H wrote:
Have you ever owned a cat? ;-)

I thought cats generally owned people.

Exactly my point. The only way they can be controlled is by caging
them in some way.

Exactly!! Socially responsible cat ownership means that you don't annoy
your neighbours - and I don't next mean just next door.

We used to have three dogs. They were trained to get up in the morning
and do their business in a particular place in the garden where it was
easy to clean up. When they went for walks, the male might
occasionally scent a lamppost (well try, he'd been snipped) but
otherwise nothing "happened". Sometimes it was fun - as soon as we got
home, they'd run to the back door to be let out to do whatever. when
the last died, we both swore we'd never have another pet as the pain
of passing was too much.

I used to hate cats - I mean really hate them and I'd be criticised
for the venom I spouted forth in their general direction. I've gone
at (former) neigbours who had three cats, only let into the house to
be fed in the evening (cats eat more than once a day). Another
neighbour collected their cats' products from his garden and deposited
it through their letterbox.

More recently a neighbour had three cats (now two - one of which never
goes outdoors for some reason). One of those was a real pain to the
street. Then one day the "pain" simply moved in with us. He got
snipped (twice). We introduced him to cat litter (took a few months
but he now goes in it (solid wise) a couple of times a day so
hopefully not a problem for others, to not going for birds (he now
sits on the lawn watching the bird table but doesn't go for them). Yes
he does sometimes bring home (live) mice and shrews which he likes to
let loose in the house. Once we catch them, we find they're rarely
injured. Put back outside he doesn't chase after them. OK, he does
tend to snip off the tail end of slow-worms a lot.

The only creatures he regularly kills (quickly we've noticed) are
moles that pop up from the ground. And we're not complaining about
that.

He probably spends all bar a few hours a day either in the house or in
the garden (he goes out at 6 ish in the morning and is back about
9-10ish). Then a mid afternoon stroll for an hour or so.

So it IS possible to socialise a cat. All it takes is a bit of effort,
a bit of love and an acceptance that YOU are the cat's pet.

Plus since he moved in, no cat poop has been found anywhere in the
garden. He's aggressively teritorial. And neighbours who used to say
they'd happily kill him now say he's ok.

Not all cats are bad; just some cat owners.

hugh ] wrote in
:

In message , Sacha
writes
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.
There was a thread recently on garden bonfires. They too are annoying
and irritating especially in an urban environment. They can also
produce toxins and smoke which can upset people with respiratory
problems. Perhaps we should ban them as well - a sort of quid pro quo?

In my area bonfires ARE prohibted.

Baz