Cat License

neelyohara

STForSale wrote: »

Cats should be allowed go where every they like, including into peoples houses / sheds if you leave a window open.

Where did you read that? I'm not aware of a single person saying this.

STForSale wrote: »

Cats 5hitting all over the place is not a problem, people should expect to find animal feces on their paths, driveways, lawns and flower beds.

I don't think this is the case but I will say that animals sh1tting in your garden is unfortunately a part of life. We don't live in a bubble so your garden will no doubt be visited by foxes, rabbits, hedgehogs and birds... especially birds. Pigeons, crows, gulls.... even swallows building nests in eves and destroying walls and the surrounding ground.

STForSale wrote: »

If a dog attacks a cat, the dog owner is liable for the cats vet bills and refusal to pay can result in the dog being destroyed.(see earlier post)

A dog was destroyed? Really? I must go back and have a look... I obviously missed that one. I find it hard to believe a dog was destroyed NOT because it was dangerous but because the owner refused to pay vet bills. That doesn't make sense.

If the cat in question is IN the dog owners garden then I don't think the dog owner should pay. I think you need to clarify the background to the story... where were the animals, what happened, etc.

STForSale wrote: »

When a cat attacks a small dog, again its tuff.

Cats generally don't randomly attack other domesticated animals - I can't speak for feral or wildcats but the most you can expect from a moggy is hissing and some swipes with a claw in to warn the other animal to back off.

I imagine in the case mentioned here where a pup had its nose scratched that it was a case of an innocent pup investigating the cat and the cat giving the dog a clout on the nose as a warning to back off.

STForSale wrote: »

Cats killing songbirds is nature, dogs killing cats is cruelty.

Cats are animals of prey. Their prey is rodents and birds. This is instinct. Even if you have the most high-tech cat enclosure in the world and your cat is collared with a bell it can still attack birds.

When birds are learning to fly they often land in my garden and my dog has pounced on the opportunity to chase and play with them and of course kill them, because of the size of my dog (he's small) vs the size of a cat it means the cats generally hang around excitedly but it's the dog who is doing the chasing and killing. Unfortunately I may not notice until it is too late.

No owner of either species would like to see their pet attack and kill another animal. It isn't OK and should be prevented to the best of your ability.

Animals killing other animals - be they pets or wild - is their nature. Cruelty is a condition perceived by humans, it doesn't exist in nature.

STForSale wrote: »

Cats fighting on the street is ok, deal with it.

Who said that? Quote someone.

STForSale wrote: »

Are cats the pet of choice for irresponsible people or is it a coincidence?
I take this back, there are a minority of cat owners here who seem to at least be trying to safeguard their pets welfare and minimise the intrusinon they cause on other peoples lives.

I think cats are very much viewed as disposable pets. As there are no regulations on their breeding or ownership it results in so many kittens and strays.

I have the opposite problem. Only two other cats in the neighbourhood but dozens of stray/loose dogs.

There are thousands of mistreated and uncared for pets... those in cages/tanks inside homes, hutches/runs in gardens. Unfortunately we don't know about them because they don't interfere with our day to day lives. Dogs and cats, when free to roam, do cross our paths.

How many dog/cat rescue shelters can you name compared to other 'pets'?

I wouldn't say it's a minority of cat owners. Remember you just need ONE irresponsible cat owner to let an un-neutered cat roam and next thing you know you have a problem.

Put it this way: A kitten can go into heat at 6 months and roughly six times per year. A litter can be anything from 2 to 8 kittens. Just start doing the math on that one. One uncared for un-neutered cat means the kittens won't be neutered or vaccinated either....

Plus cats revert being being feral very quickly, kittens will become feral if not handled regularly from the start and as any cat owner will tell you a feral cat and a domestic moggy are almost two completely different species.

neelyohara

syklops wrote: »

Tomorrow Ill post up a picture of my neighbour walking her cat on a lead in the garden.

I do that from time to time

Sometimes when walking the dog the cats decide they want to come, the only way I can do it is if they are on a lead.

The lead in question is one designed for rabbits/rats/ferrets.

Meh, I might look a bit nuts but I couldn't care It keeps them happy and out of trouble and I know they are safe.

20goto10

adser53 wrote: »

This is BY FAR the best post on this entire thread. Brilliantly worded and makes perfect sense.



It's not aggression, it's frustration and exasperation at the attitude your showing. I actually like house cats but I'm talking to the wall here because you can't understand the simple point of my arguement that cats should not be let roam. By your reasoning house cat owners are cruel and cats own everything in their "territory" even if that's someone elses property. You keep doing whatever you want with your cats, as your legally allowed to. I'd like to think that if one of your neighbours complained to you about your cat in their garden that you'd take some sort of action but based on your attitude, you'll probably just tell them to get stuffed because after all, it's a cat



Kids playing in their own adjacent garden is one thing. Would you be the same if the kids came into your garden and sat annoying your dogs? I reckon you'd kick them out and have a chat with their parents tbh..

I do understand your point, what I'm doing is disagreeing. Luckily we already have laws which protect the well being of cats. Laws which protect them from the suggestions you are making.

Cats are treated as wild animals due to the fact that the very essence of being a cat is to be wild. They're different to dogs and get treated diferentky, get over it. Get a super soaker, call the RSPCA and have them rounded up and destroyed. Deal with it yourself and get over your hang up. There's nothing more can be said.

lrushe

TooManyDogs wrote: »

Funny, people would have said that about confining dogs 50 years ago, but it turns out dogs are fine with it, owners just have to adapt and make their property an environment suitable for a cat.

Once again, dogs and cats - apples and oranges!!!!

docmol

20goto10 wrote: »

Cats aren't exempt they simply don't understand and it's impossible to impose boundries on them. A fence is a good idea if u have a big garden, otherwise it's cruel. The suggestions simply don't work and your aggressive attitude towards cats doesn't do you any favours. You're coming across a bit like a dog barking. People don't care why it's barking they just want it to shut up.

It is the very nature of a cat to explore, claim territory and protect that territory. To take that away is to stop a cat being a cat and that's simply cruelty. It'll never be law because there's already laws to prevent cruelty to animals which protects them.

It's the "nature" of dogs to hunt prey in packs, kill and eat it. It's also in their nature to pooh where they like. When we take a dog as a pet we accept the responsibility for its actions. We have to train them and secure them. We have to ensure that they are not a danger or nuisance to other people. The dogs might prefer to be out all day, roaming free, but as this causes problems, we train them to accept a different lifestyle. I don't understand how some cat owners don't get this.
The whole "natural" arguement, in my opinion, falls flat on its face. I think the concepts "natural" and "wild" are being confused. If any animal is going to be kept as a pet, the keeper must accept responsibilty for it's actions. I think this is well established in law. The licensing/chipping of cats would be a step towards making that law enforceable.

The Sweeper

20goto10 wrote: »

They're different to dogs and get treated diferentky, get over it. Get a super soaker, call the RSPCA and have them rounded up and destroyed.

I think it says a lot about your argument that it boils back to bare bones of 'soak my animal with a jet of water to get it off your property, or have it euthanised.'

If you like, go chat to the boys on the shooting forum about using feral cats as target practice. Quite a few shooting enthusiasts will shoot cats and the way the differentiate between nuisance and pet is whether or not it's wearing a collar. That's what treating a cat like a wild animal gets you - it's literally treated like a wild animal.

If you'd stop being hysterical for a second and see the bigger picture (as oopposed to making ridiculous statements about allowing your cat to weather the elements as a feral, as opposed to restricting its roaming for both its own safety and out of respect for your neighbours) you might be able to hear a new idea over the white noise of your own outrage.

adser53

20goto10 wrote: »

I do understand your point, what I'm doing is disagreeing. Luckily we already have laws which protect the well being of cats. Laws which protect them from the suggestions you are making.

Cats are treated as wild animals due to the fact that the very essence of being a cat is to be wild. They're different to dogs and get treated diferentky, get over it. Get a super soaker, call the RSPCA and have them rounded up and destroyed. Deal with it yourself and get over your hang up. There's nothing more can be said.

Step down off your high horse and have a look what tou just wrote...what suggestions did I make anywhere that is against the law or against the well being of cats? Are you for real that you'd release your cat to fend for itself and die a cold miserable animal than care for it in your own home? And I don't want the cats destroyed, cop yourself on. I want the OWNERS to look after them properly. It does say a lot about you as a cat owner to even suggest both of the things you posted.

Zulu

20goto10 wrote: »

You'd also have a massive decrease in cat owners

Thats not nessisarly a bad thing - so long as the remaining pet owners are both responsible & considerate.

and an increase in your poo problem.

Poo is only one aspect of the problem. Less cat owners does not equal more cats.
More responsible cat owners will lead to less cats roaming.

lrushe wrote: »

We'll just put down all the cats owned by people with small gardens so, problem solved indeed :rolleyes:

Re read what I posted. I never said anything like what you've implied above, so perhaps save the rollyeyes. :rolleyes:

20goto10

Zulu wrote: »

Thats not nessisarly a bad thing - so long as the remaining pet owners are both responsible & considerate.
Poo is only one aspect of the problem. Less cat owners does not equal more cats.
More responsible cat owners will lead to less cats roaming.

Re read what I posted. I never said anything like what you've implied above, so perhaps save the rollyeyes. :rolleyes:

less cat owners means more wild cats. There are no statistics but I know from talking to my vet that there are a hell of a lot of cats born in the wild or abandoned. Less willing owners equals more wild cats.

STForSale

docmol wrote: »

It's the "nature" of dogs to hunt prey in packs, kill and eat it. It's also in their nature to pooh where they like. When we take a dog as a pet we accept the responsibility for its actions. We have to train them and secure them. We have to ensure that they are not a danger or nuisance to other people. The dogs might prefer to be out all day, roaming free, but as this causes problems, we train them to accept a different lifestyle. I don't understand how some cat owners don't get this.
The whole "natural" arguement, in my opinion, falls flat on its face. I think the concepts "natural" and "wild" are being confused. If any animal is going to be kept as a pet, the keeper must accept responsibilty for it's actions. I think this is well established in law. The licensing/chipping of cats would be a step towards making that law enforceable.

+1 to everything you said.
Now, I'm off to join the shooting forum

lrushe

QUOTE=Zulu;65769600]
Re read what I posted. I never said anything like what you've implied above, so perhaps save the rollyeyes. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

So what do you propose happens to the surplus of animals now finding themselves homeless because their original owners don't have big enough gardens for them to live in?????

20goto10

I'll use an exaggeration to get my point across. Rats are pets too. Would having rat laws control the rat population? Rabbits - would forcing people to keep rabbits indoors control their population?

The cat population is realitively under control due to people taking them in as pets and neutering them. Disease is under control because we vaccinate them. You'd prefer to deter people from owning them and make the ridiculous assumption that it will solve the cat "problem".

You just don't understand cats. That's fine by me. It would only bother me if it was my cat being persecuted and hated. Luckily my cat does not do the things being described here and is actually liked by the neighbours. So maybe I come across as not caring because it's not a problem I've faced in 23 years of owning cats.

lrushe

docmol wrote: »

It's the "nature" of dogs to hunt prey in packs, kill and eat it. It's also in their nature to pooh where they like. When we take a dog as a pet we accept the responsibility for its actions. We have to train them and secure them. We have to ensure that they are not a danger or nuisance to other people. The dogs might prefer to be out all day, roaming free, but as this causes problems, we train them to accept a different lifestyle. I don't understand how some cat owners don't get this.
The whole "natural" arguement, in my opinion, falls flat on its face. I think the concepts "natural" and "wild" are being confused. If any animal is going to be kept as a pet, the keeper must accept responsibilty for it's actions. I think this is well established in law. The licensing/chipping of cats would be a step towards making that law enforceable.

It is no longer in dogs immediate nature to hunt in packs we've bred that more or less out of them, it is in their nature to seek socialisation in packs there is a difference. Dogs don't like to roam in the same way as a cat they need that human contact so will mostly stay close to home, cats are less dependant on this. I pretty sure if I stopped feeding my cat she would just move on and find a new food source my dogs wouldn't. Cats and dogs are way too different to be constantly compared.

STForSale

I would hazzard a guess and say the same that happened when restrictions where placed on dog owners?
The majority of owners adjusted, no doubt many ended up being handed in to animal shelters, some strayed and where picked up by wardens and society moved on?

Seems sensible enought to me.

crotalus667

20goto10 wrote: »

less cat owners means more wild cats. .

cat population = wild cats + pet cats take away some of the pet cats = smaler cat popilation

adser53

STForSale wrote: »

Doubt many here are actually being bullied by cats.
There are several ways I could "deal" with this problem.
I just fell there is a wider issue that warrants debate, which is what most of
us here are trying to do.
Present company excluded.

Exactly. Thanks ST

I remembered a pic I took 6 years ago on holidays in Italy and this could (and should ) be the future of cat ownership in Ireland.... I hope she has a poop bag with her lol

TooManyDogs

lrushe wrote: »

It is no longer in dogs immediate nature to hunt in packs we've bred that more or less out of them, it is in their nature to seek socialisation in packs there is a difference. Dogs don't like to roam in the same way as a cat they need that human contact so will mostly stay close to home, cats are less dependant on this. I pretty sure if I stopped feeding my cat she would just move on and find a new food source my dogs wouldn't. Cats and dogs are way too different to be constantly compared.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. It doesn't matter how long dogs have been domesticated they are still preditory animals who will operate as a pack in all aspects if given a chance. The majority of dogs will roam if given the opertunity. A pack of domestic dogs will hunt and kill another animal, that's why farmers shoot dogs for worrying their sheep. It's not wild dogs doing it, it's domestic dogs doing it. And most of the time they are individual neighbouring dogs who get together to form a pack, the instinct is that strong still.

My dogs most certainly operate as a pack, and I have no doubt they will kill that neighbours cat one of these days when I'm not there to prevent it, and it's because they still have those hunt and kill instincts, so to say otherwise is foolish.

The only reason people think dogs don't have these instincts anymore is that that majority of dog owners take responsibility for their pets, and don't let them do their natural behaviour of roaming and hunting.

Ticktactoe

This thread has seriously heated up!

Its very simple....
Some people love dogs, some people love cats and some people love both.
You have a right to have an opinion on both animals and share them but I think getting ratty with each other is going a step tooo far.

I love both cats and dogs and I understand that they are animals and not humans.

The following is taken from Wiki:

The dog is a domesticated form of the wolf. There is conclusive evidence that dogs genetically diverged from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago. Dogs have a sophisticated form of social cognition and communication which they inherited from the wolf ancestry and may account for their trainability, playfulness, and ability to fit into human households and social situations, and these attributes have earned dogs a unique relationship with humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog


The cat is a small domesticated carnivorous mammal that is valued by humans for its companionship and its ability to hunt vermin and household pests. Cats have been associated with humans for at least 9,500 years. Cats have either a mutualistic or commensal relationship with humans. However, in comparison to dogs, cats have not undergone major changes during the domestication process, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat are not radically different from those of wildcats, and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat

Ive always put my understanding of dogs and cats (domestication)down to the following...
If you throw a dog and cat out into the wild, the cat is the more likely to survive due to its instints and ability to hunt. Even if your cat never seen the outdoors, it would quickly adapt where a dog would not have the ability.

star-pants

Thread has been moved to Animal Welfare, please note posts are premoderated here so it may take a little time before your post becomes visible.
Also I'm rather annoyed that no one heeds a warning, I asked to keep this clean and on topic but some of you have to bicker anyway. Next time bans will be handed out.

adser53

This has desecended into a cats VS dogs thread and there's no point to it.

They are different animals, we ALL accept that and no one is trying to say otherwise. I'm clearly on the dog side here and while I like house cats, I will freely admit I don't like outside cats that roam around other peoples property. It's not the species, it's just the lack of respect their owners show. and note I said outside, not feral. To me, a feral cat is no different to a fox.

A domesticated pet cat that belongs to someone is a different kettle of fish despite being the same species. As I said already, dog laws cannot be implemented on our feline friends (or enemies in some cases ) but I do think it's a fair opinion that regulations are required for cats. IMO all cats should be neutered, vaccinated and chipped because they can get out easily and they breed like rabbits! Not all dogs NEED to be neutered because if they're confined to a secure garden or dog run, the chances of them accidentally mating with another dog are slim. However if a dog is found roaming and it's un-neutered, I believe there should be an additional fine (along with the one for it being out in the first palce)

This is not the case in cats as we all know. If it was, I believe it would straight away reduce the amount of feral and abandoned cats. Surely all cat owners would like to see that happen? The fees collected from cat licences could (and probably won't in all fairness in this country) be put into cat schemes such as catch, neuter and release, rescues, cheaper neutering and chipping for owners etc. Again, similar to dogs but not the same.

Yes, fines on irresponsible cat owners may result in them surrendering their cats but in general it makes the rest of the cat owners more responsible for their animal which in turn gives their cat a better chance of a longer life and maybe even more importantly a better name among us "accused" cat haters

We all know it's not the case that there's a law for country and a law for urban pet owners but we all know things are different in country areas. Out in the schticks dogs roam, cats roam, etc etc etc but in estates, roaming animals (dogs & cats) are nothing but a nuisance.

I can accept that people don't love dogs as much as I do so I keep my dogs to myself and try not infringe on anyone around me. Most dog owners do this but like everything, there's always a few exceptions to the rule. I personally don't think it's asking cat owners too much to do the same. If I didn't have enough space for a dog, I'd get a hamster. Others in that situation get cats instead and let them roam. This isn't a solution IMO as the outside world doesn't belong to cats alone.

Cat regulations obviously do work in other countries as discussed in the first few pages of this thread (and see my pic above lol) and no, it won't happen overnight here but it's a start to even discuss it.

I'm still just hoping someone can give one good reason against licences and for allowing roaming cats other than "because they're cats and you don't understand them". I'm not looking for an arguement here, just good sense answers to some simple questions and can we stop comparing cats and dogs on a scientific level? For the purpose of this thread, IMO the only similarity between them that's relevent is that they are animals OWNED by someone that needs to be responsible for them

Zulu

To be honest I think the whole cat v dogs is irrelevant to this issue.
To me it's simple animal care. Never mind what animal it is for the moment, if you can't be held responsible for the actions of the animal or it's welfare, you shouldn't be allowed to have it.
If you are going to buy an animal you should be able to care for it correctly; you should be responsible for it.

John Mason

syklops wrote: »

Tomorrow Ill post up a picture of my neighbour walking her cat on a lead in the garden. Might sound crazy to many people on this board but it is quite a common site on the continent. The reason being that there are tight restrictions on both cats and dogs.

my friend lives in germany where cats are not allowed roam and she walks her cat on a lead, it is completely normal to them.

as someone said 20 years ago, no had a problem opening their front door and letting their dogs roam, now only responsible dog owners do this

John Mason

lrushe wrote: »

It is no longer in dogs immediate nature to hunt in packs we've bred that more or less out of them

OMG are you serious:eek: you go and talk to any sheep farmer in the country and tell them that and see what they have to say. actually no, i go one better and ask them to show the ewe wandering around with her guts hanging out and her dead lamb or the ewe that died of a heart attack from being worried by dogs.

I am truly speechless:eek:

the reason you think it doesnt happen is responsible dog owners do not allow their dogs to roam

adser53

Zulu wrote: »

To be honest I think the whole cat v dogs is irrelevant to this issue.
To me it's simple animal care. Never mind what animal it is for the moment, if you can't be held responsible for the actions of the animal or it's welfare, you shouldn't be allowed to have it.
If you are going to buy an animal you should be able to care for it correctly; you should be responsible for it.

Agreed. Thats all I've been trying to say

Orla K

irishbird wrote: »

my friend lives in germany where cats are not allowed roam and she walks her cat on a lead, it is completely normal to them.

What do they do if they meet a dog or worse yet a wandering dog. If I tried that here we'd be attacked.

lrushe

TooManyDogs wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. It doesn't matter how long dogs have been domesticated they are still preditory animals who will operate as a pack in all aspects if given a chance. The majority of dogs will roam if given the opertunity. A pack of domestic dogs will hunt and kill another animal, that's why farmers shoot dogs for worrying their sheep. It's not wild dogs doing it, it's domestic dogs doing it. And most of the time they are individual neighbouring dogs who get together to form a pack, the instinct is that strong still.

My dogs most certainly operate as a pack, and I have no doubt they will kill that neighbours cat one of these days when I'm not there to prevent it, and it's because they still have those hunt and kill instincts, so to say otherwise is foolish.

The only reason people think dogs don't have these instincts anymore is that that majority of dog owners take responsibility for their pets, and don't let them do their natural behaviour of roaming and hunting.

irishbird wrote: »

OMG are you serious:eek: you go and talk to any sheep farmer in the country and tell them that and see what they have to say. actually no, i go one better and ask them to show the ewe wandering around with her guts hanging out and her dead lamb or the ewe that died of a heart attack from being worried by dogs.

I am truly speechless:eek:

the reason you think it doesnt happen is responsible dog owners do not allow their dogs to roam

Re-read my post and note the immediate nature part, therein I'm not saying its not present at all, I'm saying it is not in the forefront of their nature, of course it can be brought to the fore in certain circumstances but it has been greatly dull by human selection.
I can walk my dogs through a field of sheep (and have done) without so much as a peep from them, I wouldn't risk walking my cat through a flock of sparrows without the feathers flying.

neelyohara

lrushe wrote: »

Re-read my post and note the immediate nature part, therein I'm not saying its not present at all, I'm saying it is not in the forefront of their nature, of course it can be brought to the fore in certain circumstances but it has been greatly dull by human selection.

This is true.

'Pack' is a very term thrown about too often (thanks Ceaser!). Dogs certainly find comfort in belonging to a hierarchy, this is different to a wolf pack where a dominant hierarchy operates - the alpha will continually fight (and kill) to be top dog.... not something seen in domestic dogs.

In addition to that it's found that wild dogs revert to scavengers (even in groups) rather than preying on other animals.

As lrushe said it's not always the case. Dogs will attack - they can attack anyone or anything. Dogs rarely kill... farm animals are normally destroyed due to the attack, become infected or drown trying to escape.

Nobody knows why they do it - there are teams of animal behaviourists who are invested in researching this and they don't know why it happens. The main theory put forward is that animals running from the dog (when the dog is sighted) stimulate the dog to give chase. The bite or attack is believed to come from excess adrenaline.

They know any dog is capable of it - neutered or not, well fed or not, wild or pet. In studies they've found that half of all attacks were by a single dog, the remaining attacks were by two dogs and a miniscule amount were by three or more dogs.

This has nothing to do with 'pack' behaviour or a desire to kill, it's the remaining vestiges of a dogs natural behaviour that we have all but bred out of them. Think of greyhounds, sheepdogs, hunting dogs, etc.

They've also found animals attacked by wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc are less stressed because they go in for the kill. They don't give chase, they rarely injure an animal and leave it.

neelyohara

Orla K wrote: »

What do they do if they meet a dog or worse yet a wandering dog. If I tried that here we'd be attacked.

I had a problem with my two cats wanting to follow me when I walked the dog. I'd get so far and next thing they'd pop out of nowhere and I'd have to return home with them, lock them in and start again.

I couldn't keep walking with them trailing me as I pass traffic and a built up area. So I picked up two rabbit leads.

I've had loose dogs come up to me and generally it's fine. While my dog wants to march up to anything bigger than her the cats go out of their way to avoid other dogs. If I see a couple of dogs or the dog gets too close I'll pick the cats up, tuck on underneath each arm and keep walking (fully aware that I look like a crazy person!:D)

Graces7

pegasus1 wrote: »

it is the law here in ireland that a cat can wander where it wants to...i was told by a reliable friend only yesterday that previously a man was up in court due to him being witnessed in the killing of a neighbours cat.. the judge ruled in favour of the deceased cats owner in that he ruled that a cat is free to roam where he/she wants to... the man got fined 4,000 quid and a criminal record!

Bravo; and so he should have been. Good for the judge...

planetX

Why would anyone want to walk a cat on a lead? When you walk a dog, you are simulating the patrolling of pack territory - scenting along the way etc It's in the dogs genetic make-up to want to do this.
There is no reason a cat would want to be taken for a walk, and it would be traumatic for most of them, they are not social pack animals!!! Cats need to be climbing up trees, hiding and pouncing on things, not walking in a straight line. Insane.