I wanted your opinions on the following situation:
My brother Jim has a dog, Bob. Bob’s a laid-back dog, good with kids, doesn’t bark much, likes people. But he’s a big dog, and he’s a cat chaser to the depths of his doggy heart.
Jim’s next-door-neighbors had a cat, Taffy. Taffy was allowed outdoors and was pretty elderly, the family had had her for years. Bob got out of Jim’s yard and killed Taffy. The neighbors were hugely upset (they have a pre-teen son who was heartbroken) and Jim was very sorry and apologetic that it happened. Jim reinforced his fencing, gave my niece and nephew a stern lecture about never leaving the gate open, and even added a perimeter of invisible fencing and a shock collar in case Bob jumped the physical fence. The neighbors got a new kitten, Daffy.
Last week Daffy got into Jim’s yard and Bob killed her.
The neighbors are very upset, and their son is VERY upset. THey are taking the position that Bob has a problem and that any other neighborhood animal that comes into Jim’s yard is “at risk.” They have also asked what lesson it is sending their son that Bob is able to kill his pets without consequences. They have asked Jim to give Bob away.
Jim and these neighbors have to date been very close. Jim is a single father raising his kids and these neighbors have been incredibly supportive and helpful to him. They are genuinely nice people, and Jim would like to maintain good relations with them if at all possible. He’s just sick about the situation.
What would you tell the neighbors, if you were Jim? If you need further relevant information, I’ll provide it.
Jim has done what he can to alleviate the problem. If they keep letting their cat outside and they keep losing cats…well, maybe they should stop letting them outside. You can’t keep a cat in or out of anyplace easily. There’s nothing Jim could do to stop the cat from getting into his yard. His neighbours could stop that quite easily though, by not letting their cat out.
Bob-the-dog does not have a problem. Neighbors who let their pets roam around are the ones with a problem, namely blatant irresponsibility. The dog was in his own yard. Both of the neighbors’ cats were in Bob’s territory. A reasonable person would figure one cat dying would be enough incentive to keep any subsequent cats indoors. The neighbors may be nice but their cats’ deaths are on them.
The neighbors want your brother to inflict some sort of punishment on the dog to teach him–a dog–consequences of killing cats. Right. Like the dog could possibly make any possible connection between chasing and killing a cat some time ago with punishment now. The neighbors, and the bereaved kid, don’t seem to learn consequences of their own irresponsibility. Bob-the-dog was able to kill their cats because they let the cats roam around. Cars, coyotes, raccoons, dogs, large hawks/etc.=dead cats.
Asking your brother to get rid of his dog is ridiculous. The neighbor’s kid is upset so hey, make your brother’s kid/kids get rid of their dog. Tit for tat. That isn’t justice and it isn’t reasonable. The neighbors were negligent.
I doubt that the neighbors will be placated by anything short of abject groveling and Bob hauled away to be euthanized. Best he can do, IMO, is express sympathy for their grief and suggest that they keep cats indoors from now on. Punish his kid/kids and the dog for their negligence? Talk about bad messages for all concerned.
Jim has done plenty, and though INAL, if the animals keep coming onto his property, then I believe that he is in the right. He has ensured that the dog doesn’t get out, and according to the OP Bob is a good dog who is no threat to people. I’d tell them to keep the cat indoors and front the cost to adopt a new kitten at the local ASPCA to make amends for Bob’s unruly behavior.
I would also suggest that your brother offer to pay for a new kitty, but stipulate that all new kitties be indoor kitties. I don’t know how rural your brother’s neighborhood is, but around here, a stray cat equals a coyote’s dinner.
Just pointing out that according to the OP the first cat-killing occurred outside of Bob the dog’s territory, possibly even in the cat’s territory. That is why Jim the brother strengthened the fencing.
I belatedly thought of something that might help your brother dealing with this. I’m sure there’s an official term for it but I just think of it as The Three Sentence Rule for dealing with sticky problems. (I think it came from Miss Manners, IIRC.) Your brother is upset, his neighbors are upset, the kids are upset…it won’t be an easy ‘solve’.
It might help to think of three points he’ll put into an easy sentence each. Then don’t deviate from those three sentences. Just repeat them, firmly and gently. It saves impulsive retorts, emotional digressions, etc. Strictly for example:
Losing a pet is a very hard thing and I understand how upset you are.
Since you and Kid miss Daffy so much, I’d be happy to buy you a new kitty with all shots, neutering, etc. of course.
For its further protection, my only request is that you keep the new kitty as an indoor cat.
Or something like that. It might help your brother get through The Discussion and gently remind the neighbors of their obligations to their pet.
Just an idea. And best of luck to your brother and his kids. The mess wasn’t of their devising but still…what a mess.
The lesson it should send to their son is that there’s a difference between dogs and people, and that when you keep carnivores as pets you have to expect that they will occasionally kill something. Taffy and Daffy had probably been slaughtering pretty little songbirds all over the neighborhood.
That said, if giving Bob away is what needs to happen to placate the neighbors, Jim should give Bob away. Bob is, after all, just a dog. But Jim should also make it clear to the neighbors that he accepts no blame for the second cat’s death. He kept Bob in his territory; the neighbors should learn to keep their pets in their territory.
In other words, Jim is in the right here, but he shouldn’t make enemies of his human neighbors just to defend a dog’s honor.
[QUOTE=WF Tomba
That said, if giving Bob away is what needs to happen to placate the neighbors, Jim should give Bob away. Bob is, after all, just a dog. But Jim should also make it clear to the neighbors that he accepts no blame for the second cat’s death. He kept Bob in his territory; the neighbors should learn to keep their pets in their territory.
In other words, Jim is in the right here, but he shouldn’t make enemies of his human neighbors just to defend a dog’s honor.[/QUOTE]
Bollocks. If anything, Jim ought to keep bob inside. To ask someone to give away a cherished member of the family is ridiculous.
Naaah. Someone making an unreasonable request or demand deserves no more consideration from me, dog’s honor or not. Their cats should be kept indoors from now on, period. That is not unreasonable given the circumstances. I am speaking as someone who had to recently help my two cats (who until just a couple of months ago spent their lives happily coming and going as they pleased) acclimate to indoor life for their own protection. If I didn’t do this, it is well known in this neighborhood that the coyotes are hungry. Just because the coyotes don’t belong to someone, does that really change what the course of action should be here, and on whom the onus is placed to protect the cats? No. The first time was an accident, the second time, the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of cat owners who refuse to respect their obligation to protect.
In my city, there are leash law–for both dogs and cats. I know that’s it’s natural for cats to roam, and I’m sure the ordinance is rarely enforced, but your brother may want to check out the local laws. I know they’ve been friends in the past, but I’d bet he’d hate to be slapped with some ridiculous civil suit because they won’t mind their pets. There’s a reason leash law exist–for the safety of others and for the safety of the pets. If the neighbors really cared for their pets, they’d stop being stupid about it and get a gerbil or something else you don’t just throw outside and forget about until it gets eaten.
Your kitty gets eaten once, shame on Bob. Your kitty gets eaten twice, shame on idiot neighbors.
I don’t see how Bob being a cat-killer is the neighbors’ fault. We had a dog, Sheba, that killed a bunch of our ducks and chickens. We promptly gave her away to someone who didn’t have the temptation in their neighborhood. Contrary to what WF Tomba stated, dogs are almost always raised to be omnivores like us, and most do not have as strong an urge to kill as Bob or Sheba (or cats, which are actually the carnivores) do. Bob is a problem, much moreso than the neighbors’ cats.
The OP’s brother is lucky that the neighbors haven’t demanded Bob be put down. I’m not sure where the OP’s brother is from, but considering most dangerous animal laws talk about dogs that attack domestic animals, the family could be in legal trouble if they refuse to honor the neighbor’s request and thereby anger them enough to go to authorities. In NY for example, the neighbors could have gotten Bob put down after killing the first cat, so I consider them rather gratious that even after killing a second one they’re not lobbying for his death rather than merely being given away.
Per the code you cited they could have asked that he be evaluated re whether or not he was a dangerous dog. That’s not quite the same thing. You make it sound like his being put down was a foregone conclusion. Interestingly (per the code) they could have quite legally killed him while the attack was in progress
Luck doesn’t have anything to do with it; the neighbors are not in the position to demand that Bob be put down. Although as far as that is concerned, that is probably what they are effectively demanding. Bob is a nice dog but he is a middle-aged, large, physically none-too-attractive mutt. It would not be easy to find him another home.
The OP’s brother is from North Carolina.
Probably not correct, depending on what you mean by “in legal trouble.” The neighbors could go to the county board and try to have Bob declared a “dangerous dog” based on his having killed the first cat, not on Jim’s property. If Bob were found to be a dangerous dog, Jim would have to restrain him appropriately and would be strictly liable for any damage the dangerous dog might do. But the neighbors cannot petition to have Bob declared a dangerous dog based on the killing of the second cat, because the cat was on Jim’s property. And in neither case do the neighbors have the legal authority to force Jim to have Bob destroyed. So I guess I don’t find it terribly gracious for them to refrain from doing something they don’t have the power to do anyway.
ETA: The question isn’t really what Jim or the neighbors legally can or cannot do. The question is what people think Jim should] do, between the neighbors.
Apologies for the deluge of afterthoughts. You said your brother is a single dad, raising several kids, and the neighbors have been supportive of him.
Now I’m throwing in some assumptions here which may or may not be right. Given Jim’s diligence and expense reinforcing the fence, etc. I’m guessing his kids are pretty attached to their dog. I just can’t see how getting rid of the dog, by way of teaching consequences, amounts to much more than tit-for-tat. Your OP said the neighbors point is to teach their son that Bob-the-dog can’t kill his cats without consequences.
Who’s being taught? Certainly not Bob; he’s a dog and can’t possibly understand. The “lesson” is aimed directly at your brother and his kids, and it’s an ugly one. “Your dog killed my cat so I’ll take away/have your dog put down and see how you feel.”
Of course the poor kid is grieved for his cat. But the neighbors are, IMO, taking a thoroughly toxic approach. Daffy was killed because they were negligent. They need to accept at least some responsibility for the death of both cats. They haven’t, and their ugly little ‘lesson in consequences’ doesn’t bear the slightest seed for anything positive in the future.
Well, that’s a bad situation. Jim and Bob haven’t done anything wrong the second time, but they lost all their goodwill with the first killing. I don’t see any good resolution here. I think all Jim can do is apologize and hope his neighbours realize that they were totally to blame for the second (and any future) cat killings if they won’t keep their cats in their own yard (which amounts to keeping them inside).
Jim should offer to keep the dog inside, only letting him in the yard when he can be supervised, and suggest to the neighbors that they take the same precautions with any future cats they have. He should also pay for said future cat.