He should put the dog down.
There are plenty of good dogs around (the shelters are full of them); there is no point in keeping a killer dog around.
As a long-time cat owner, I would never let any cat outside. It severely reduces their life expectancy, in danger of being killed by not only other animals, but traffic, infections from wounds, poison, etc. The fact that they let the cats outside - especially the second one - implies that they’re willing to accept (ir)responsibility for the possible consequences. They acted out of negligence, and are entirely at fault.
That being said, what’s really important here is the relationship between Jim and his neighbors. Yes, he should get them a new cat, and stipulate that it stays indoors. Or, if they insist on letting the cat out, the three of them should reinforce the barrier to keep the two animals apart.
Only if cats are going to be put down when they bring in their first innocent little birdy.
I dunno about indoor cats.
I have tried raising indoor cats from kittens. The three of them became obsessed with the outdoors, spending hour upon hour sitting in the window, and using complicated pincer movements to get in a position to charge any door to the outside whenever they saw me approaching the still-closed door. YMMV of course, but that was my experience. I’d have trouble believing that indoor cats are truly happy.
On the other hand, nice dog as he is, Bob should go. Even if the owners agree to indoor cats, is a swift cat bolting outside between your legs when you have both hands full with laundry something that should result in the cat being arbitrarily killed by a neighbour’s pet dog? I don’t think so. The dog’s done it twice. Sorry, Fido.
It would be worth a try to put this story out on Craigslist, and see if any readers would like to trade in their not too attractive mutt for Bob. Who knows, maybe there is somebody out there who breeds birds, lives in an area with no domestic cats but a lot of stray semi-wild ones, and who would love to have a cat menace in his yard.
This.
The first time your brother was at fault since Bob got out of the yard. But your brother then took steps to reinforce the yard boundaries. The second time Bob was in the yard. The neighbors seem terribly foolish to let a second cat outside when the dog next killed the first cat. Dogs CAN be yard trained and restrained. I haven’t heard of a cat that is yard trained or one that is restricted by mere fences. (Actually, I have heard from our invisible fence trainer about an invisible fence trained cat).
Good Lord! A killer dog? He killed a cat. A killer cat, as a matter of fact. If the neighbors had just put down their killer cat none of this would have happened.
Ridiculousness aside, Jim has done everything that could be expected of him. His dog is now confined. It’s the neighbors who are letting their animals run free and therefore placing their lives in jeopardy.
It is really too bad that Bob got loose, and the first incident was all Jim’s fault. But he has apologized, accepted responsibility, and taken steps to prevent a re-occurrence. What else can he do? Getting rid of Bob won’t protect the cat from all the other dangers that are out there. Suppose a car runs over him. Or another cat attacks him. Or a stray dog. Whose fault would that be?
The first cat was the dog owners fault. He is keeping the dog in the yard and has done things to enforce the dog stay in this yard. The kitten is completely the cat owners fault. I wouldn’t get rid of the dog, because they’re pissed. They need to keep their pets on their property or keep their mouth shut when it gets killed off property.
I like this too. It demonstrates the fondness your brother has for the neighbors (and rightfully so), while at the same time helping to prevent the recurrence of a tragic outcome to an untenable situation. These folks have to get it through their head that putting a cat out subjects it to a whole host of dangers, of which a neighbor’s dog is only one of many potential players.
[Roy Scheider]
We’re going to need a bigger cat.
[/Roy Scheider]
Something similar happened in my family. In our case, the neighbor was the dog-owner, who had two retired greyhounds. You can easily imagine how they went after my sister-in-law’s loose cat in their yard. Like a shot — and the cat was dead. These next-door neighbors were just as friendly with one another as Jodi’s brother’s; my nephew, in fact, was being paid by the dog-owner (who was gone 10 hours a day) to put the dogs inside at mid-day and was very grateful to employ the boy in this fashion.
After the death of kitty, my SIL got a new cat and kept it strictly indoors. When outside, the cat is leashed. (It can be done. I personally know of three cats who are leashed outside, and one who is placed in a covered enclosure when she has outside time.)
I vote for TVeb’s three-sentence solution. It is very reasonable and if the cat owner’s can’t abide by it, then THEY’RE being unreasonable. Jim would be making reasonable efforts to remedy the situation, and giving on his side too (by paying for a new cat) without taking the unnecessary (I feel) drastic step of getting rid of his dog. Why should a cat trump a dog, anyway?
Just wanted to add my opinion on the side of the folk who say Jim was wholly at fault in the first instance, and did nothing wrong in the second. At maybe 4 months old my sweet little golden retriever played with, killed, and ate a family of baby bunnies that some retarded doe laid in our yard. Should I have her put down? If a small animal does not have the sense to stay out of a yard that clearly smells of dog, then that animal pretty much deserves to have its genes taken out of the pool.
The person with the best ability to prevent this from occurring is the neighbors, but not allowing their cats to roam. If you insist on letting your cats (or dogs) roam, you should acknowledge that you are solely responsible for creating the possibility that your pet will be attacked and possibly killed another animal - domestic or not, hit by a car, poisoned or shot by a 3d party, catch diseases/parasites from other animals, etc. Allowing a pet to roam free reduces its expected lifespan, no question about it.
I think many of you guys are ignoring the most important part of the OP.
First, he wants to maintain a good relationship with them. Being right in this particular situation is less important than being happy. The neighbors would have been well within their rights to make Jim’s life really hard after the first cat. They didn’t sue him, or try to ruin his reputation. They were far more restrained than most people would be. While the second time wasn’t his fault, his dog’s action managed to rip off the bandage of a wound he initially caused.
Second, if these people have been helpful and supportive to Jim in terms of babysitting or providing a better life to his kids, I think that has to be more important than his dog. The OP didn’t specify exactly what they’ve done to help, but I think risking that in order to keep his dog is foolish. From what the OP said, Jim seems far more indebted and reliant on these people than they are him.
My advice would be to a sincere apology and a meeting of the minds without the kids there, focusing on resolution rather than retribution. He should apologize profusely, explain why he doesn’t want to get rid of the dog, and provide at least 3 alternatives that would help to ameliorate the problem. Things like keeping the dog on a leash within the yard, and putting a muzzle on him. After their discussion, if the neighbors still insist on the dog being given away, I would advise Jim to do it. If Jim feels their relationship is important to him and his kids, he needs get rid of the dog if they insist.
Yeah, genuinely nice people are one thing, and it is always preferable to maintain good relations with neighbors, but I’m not sure “genuinely nice people” try to tell you how to live on your own property, especially regarding aspects of your life that do not impair their enjoyment of their property.
In essence, the neighbors are attempting to extend their control beyond their property lines, to allow their cat to roam over other peoples’ property, and to tell their neighbors what pets they can and cannot have on their property.
I’m pretty firmly in the camp that believes good fences make good neighbors, and that good neighbors are something distinct from good friends. I don’t know about your BIL, but I care(d) a hell of a lot more for any dog I’ve ever owned than for any neighbor I’ve ever lived next to.
What happens if someone else in the neighborhood has a dog? Do these people’s desire to let their cat roam make it so that nobody in that cat’s turf can let their dogs outside?
I looooove cats, but as many others have pointed out, if you let your cat roam, you are risking the cat’s life. Cars, dogs, poison - there’s a ton of stuff out there. I’ve lost a cat to anti-freeze, but I didn’t go around to all my neighbors and insist they cat-proof their garages and make sure any anti-freeze is in a locked cupboard.
As far as getting rid of the dog… boy, I’d have to REALLY love my neighbors to get rid of a dog for them. I think it’s totally out of line for them to ask for that.
Getting rid of the dog also affects his kids that like the dog. Maybe he’d rather have his kids like him instead of the neighbors liking him. This is of course one of the extremes that preferably are to be avoided. Compromise is better if both sides can agree, but if not he will have to decide.
I have incredibly little sympathy for anyone who thinks they should have the right to let their cat out to go into other peoples’ yards at will with no negative consequences. However, since previous interactions with them have been friendly and it was Jim’s fault when the first cat was killed, it’s probably worth it for Jim to talk to them about acceptable solutions to the problem. If the neighbors are looking for a solution rather than revenge, then muzzling the dog or not letting it out unsupervised should be sufficient. As a show of good faith, it might also be worth talking to a trainer to see if anything can be done about the dog’s prey drive (I’m doubtful, but at least he’ll have made the effort).
This has to be a whoosh, right? A lawsuit? A smear campaign? Because a dog killed a cat?
Every word rings true.
It’s an unreasonable request by the neighbors.
I’m saying this speaking as a cat-lover whose parents at one point owned a cat-killing dog. It would go for any cat that weighed less than 10 pounds or so. The first cat it killed belonged to our uphill neighbor’s kids - my parents were horrified, offered to pay for a new cat (plus attendant costs of shots, spay/neuter, etc.) (which offer was appreciated but declined on the basis that my parents had no idea the dog was a cat-killer until that moment) and then made a concerted effort to keep the dog in their own yard. The dog was young then and we hadn’t had her long - plus, she’d never bothered our cat, aside from frequent unwelcome lickings. The uphill neighbors were upset, but everyone collectively treated it as a “Man that sucked, but wasn’t anyone’s fault” moment. That dog was never even marginally aggressive with people or other dogs, she just had a thing for cats. Only smaller cats though - big ones were safe from her. (That dog has since died - from old age at around age 15.)
My parents also warned all our neighbors about the dog - mostly so they’d know the problem existed in case the dog got out. Most of our neighbors kept cats indoors anyway (we didn’t have coyotes - we had black bears, who thought cats made great snacks), but my parents figured that it was the neighborly thing to do just in case their dog got out again - and so people would be more inclined to keep their cats inside where the cats couldn’t wander into our yard and be in danger. We had one neighbor (eastside) who refused to keep his cats (he was also a refuser-to-neuter person so he always had a pile of cats) in the house. The second cat the dog killed (belonging to the refuser) was in our garage at the time. That dog killed (I think) three more cats over the course of its life, all belonging to the same eastside neighbor, and all in our yard. After the first one, he came screaming over to my folks demanding we put the dog down. They refused - told him that they’d warned him there was a potential problem and that this time the dog hadn’t left our property. They were sorry (and they were), and repeated their suggestion that maybe keeping his cats inside would help. The guy came over every six months or so for a screamer with my dad (well, the guy screamed, my dad stuck to the calm, polite party line that they were sorry, and possibly he should keep the cats inside?). Granted, only four of those visits were confirmed to be our dog - most were “mysterious disappearances” that could have been bears or traffic or buggering off to go live with another family.
Weirdly, aside from the twice-yearly rantings about our “dangerous killer dog” the neighbor relationship was amiable.
I think sticking to the Three Sentences mentioned above is really all Bob’s owner can do. Giving in to the crazy is unlikely to be helpful and sets a really, really bad precedent.
The alternative that would work the best is the neighbors keeping the cat contained. The idea that he has to muzzle his dog in their OWN YARD but the cat should have free walk of the neighborhood is absurd and incredibly one-sided. Joe did what he could to ensure that his dog remains in his yard. Now the neighbors need to ensure that their cat stays in their yard. The animals cannot comingle- this is not solely the responsibility of the dog owner.
Count me as another supporter of TVeblen’s three sentences.
Because I also am in agreement with another theme of this thread which is that the first cat’s death was at least partly the dog owner’s fault–dog on cat’s turf. But the second cat death was mostly the cat owner’s fault–cat on dog’s turf, and the dog was KNOWN to be a cat-killer. So the dog owner should apologize, and be respectful and polite, but it isn’t really the dog owner’s fault that the dog got to the cat before a car or a coyote or something else did.