It is not disingenuous to suggest thas, squirting a cat with water is effective for behavior modification. How do I know this, because I have cats and use a squirt bottle to modify their behavior. It works. Therefore, from my perspective, it is not disingenuous.
It’s disingenuous to assume that:
a) someone’s going to be available 24/7 to patrol the property with a squirt bottle, and
b) squirting a cat you happen across once in a while is anywhere near as consistent reinforcement as squirting a cat you live with and see every day.
So, unless you cite information that proves your theory, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Feel free to take back disingenuous at any time because neither you nor the other poster have proven whether or not this will work. You merely point out that the person with the hose will not be around at all times and therefore, if the animal is squirted with the hose one time, it will come back at another. But isn’t the point of discipline of this sort to inspire the fear once or twice that would keep the animal from coming on the property when you are not there? In answer to “a)”, I did not assume this but expected a few squirting per cat would do the trick. As far as those people who want to be able to squirt one cat once and have all cats stay out of their yard, I have no suggestions for them. As far as “b)” is concerned, I did not assume this either. I believe that a cat would not come in someone’s yard if they have been squirted with a hose properly a few times. I mean, if it is freezing this might be cruel but if it will give the cat a shock it is effective behavior modification. Ultimately, the owner of the cat should keep the animal confined to his or her property. If you have a problem with a domestic animal that belongs to someone else I would suggest following that advice which has been repeated driven home by the more sane members of this board: That you should knock on the person’s door and talk to them about it.
Here is a nice link that suggests that squirting the cat works. Look under the “Your Garden” section.
I think this and the other post underscore a problem with American society quite nicely and that is the insulation of the individual from society. There are other people out there and you must make an effort to get along with them peacefully. People are going to annoy you while they pursue their rights to happiness. We have to learn to work with some of those people to a degree or we just end up in jail. This is one of those instances. But people think that they are the center of the universe and that only their rights matter. I’m sorry but this is not the case and it never was.
Why? It was accidental. That is so unethical of you. :wally
Of course I wouldn’t do any of those things. Because it would be unethical. I would also expect you to act in a similar manner as the good lady in Wisconsin did with the cats that were trespassing on her property and affecting the quality of her life. I’d expect you to quite possibly shoot my dog or haul my car off. I wouldn’t see anything unethical about you doing so either.
Any reasonable person doesn’t let his pets roam without understanding that other perfectly reasonable people might dispose of them like a pest when those free roaming pets behave as such on property where they don’t belong. Once you let that pet roam, it ceases to be so valuable that it is above reproach when it causes damage to other peoples’ property. That includes harassing and killing of wildlife on property that that pet is trespassing upon or defecating or urinating on property that the animal is trespassing upon.
Thanks for registering your Bull, because that is exactly what it is.
Consult your local, state, and federal law concerning killing wildlife or domestic animals on your property.
I would expect that it has a lot more to do with the relative frequency with which the cat in question encounters the noxious stimulus, than the absolute number of times it occurs. In our particular case, the various neighborhood cats know to run away when they see me come out, but this doesn’t actually keep them out of the yard. It seems that these cats have learned to fear me, but not the fact of being on the property itself (judging by the amount of crap on the lawn, flowerbeds, etc.)
My anecdotal evidence would suggest that cats merely learn to run away if they see someone coming towards them.
I have no idea what action you think I’m condoning, but the advice you so condescendingly refer to is really only useful if you have any idea who these wandering cats belong to. Or, I suppose, you could canvas the whole neighborhood to find out.
So they suggest it works; I suggest that it merely teaches the cat to run away but not stay away. Stalemate.
I’m really very curious. Where did you get the notion that I was advocating some sort of non-peaceful action? My participation in this thread has been limited to discussing theoretical disposition of various types of claimed and unclaimed personal possessions left on one’s property.
Your pontificating, amusing as it is, isn’t really germane to the discussion.
I learned a new word this weekend: ipsedixitism. I think you’ve come down with a bad case.
Sure, I understand that “perfectly reasonable” people might behave unethically and illegally; that’s not really relevant to the discussion. Nobody claimed that a roaming cat is above reproach; that’s similarly irrelevant to the discussion.
Daniel
Sometimes cats like to take long rides to other neighborhoods miles and miles away.
But I don’t advise that. The only humane thing to do if you think the cat is maltreated is take it to the humane society. Otherwise, videotape the cat doing its buisiness and file a complaint for damages in small claims court.
On any one time event where no property damage has occurred a little tolerance is wise when dealing with neighbors, as they are likely to be around to escalate things for a long time and you cannot predict where things will end up.
You also have to keep things in perspective. A kite is a kids thing. Getting to upset about that is just being a grouch. Your right, but most of the world will see you as intolerant except other grouches. Note, it is possible that forums like this attract a dispproportionate percentage of grouches.
As for the car. Again, a one time incident? Two issues. One, if it is the first time, one might just call them very, very, very early in the morning, to say that you have to go out to get the paper would they mind moving their car parked in YOUR driveway. Odds are they were driving drunk and that is how it happened.
If it was only a blocked driveway, I would feel that it would be OK to drive onto their lawn a little to get around their car. Only fair. You could say that you didn’t notice that you were on their lawn just as they did not notice they were blocking you.
Another strategy might be to gently deflate all 4 tires through the stems. No property damage here, but an inconvenience. Best avoid putting a little hole in the sidewall of one or more of their tires as those kinds of punctures cannot be repaired. 
Only holes in the treads can be repaired. Not the sides.
Again, property damage is clearly wrong for an annoyance like this, especially the first time. But a copy of this post with the headers stripped off in the mailbox might make the point… In fact, printing this whole thread might be just the solution to your problem. Gets the point across with no actual action at all! It could even have been turned in by a helpful neighbor watching the whole thing from across the street who has written this post and will then walk it over for you. Or not.
Good luck.
Peter
<A href=“http://thepeterfiles.blogspot.com”>Your Home For Comedy and Satire That is Nearly Always Safe for Work</a>
I agree with what you’re saying here, but I just wanted to point out in the interest of the board’s mission that ipse dixit is not always a fallacy, and that in fact there are some systems of logic in which the only true statements are ipsedixitisms.
Maybe a garden hose would work on the kitty, maybe not. Of course, the more time that you’re around to squirt the hose, the better your chances. But there are feline repellent products on the market. Apply repellent in the right places and the cat will sooner or later stop coming around. I’m in favor of doing small things, even at my own expense, rather than killing an innocent cat.
That’s perfectly reasonable. I must be cursed with particularly persistent local cats, though: they seem to always reappear once the repellent wears off. 
I’ve tried several brands so far…
This is a perfect description of someone who allows his animals to befoul my property.
Fair enough. I just wanted to use my new word.
Daniel
It’s a great word. 
To try to wrench this discussion back to its original parameters, something occurred to me late last night regarding disposition of unclaimed possessions on one’s property.
The car is a special case, as it’s an item which is specifically and legally linked to a particular person via its vehicle registration. Thus, it probably receives special consideration even if it remains unclaimed. My questions about whether this consideration applies to an unclaimed bicycle or refrigerator therefore don’t apply, as these items aren’t legally registered to a specific person.
This raises some interesting questions with regards to wandering pets. I’m pretty sure cats aren’t required to be registered with anybody (although I believe some areas require dogs to be registered). I guess having a collar would be an obvious indicator of ownership, but it seems that lots of people don’t bother to collar their cats.
Technically, at least in North Carolina, they’re required to wear rabies tags at all times. If someone’s cat is wearing a rabies tag, then the order of calls that follows should go like this:
- You call animal control to report the animal (or deliver it to animal control). Animal control finds out the rabies tag, one way or another.
- Animal control calls the state veterinarian’s office to find out which veterinarian issued that particular rabies tag.
- Animal control calls the vet that issued that particular rabies tag, and finds out the name and phone number of the cat’s (or dog’s) owner.
- Animal control calls the animal’s owner to let them know that you have their animal/animal control has their animal.
- The owner retrieves their animal and likely pays a fine for breaking the leash laws.
It’s a cumbersome system; but you, the pet-finder, only have one call to make.
If the animal lacks any sort of tag, of course, the situation does change; I’d guess it becomes similar to what the situation would be if an untagged car ended up on your property (although I guess the untagged car would still have a VIN). I’m not sure how the laws handle such items, items that may or may not have an owner.
I wish we had more lawyers in this thread; honestly, I’m more interested in the legal angle than in the ethical angle, although both are interesting.
Daniel
Likewise, although I think we’d probably be limited by differing community statutes across the country.
Another question regarding the “pets as possessions” concept: it’s been suggested to me that ending your own pet’s life via any method other than vet-administered euthanasia constitutes animal cruelty. Is this true in your experience?
In our jurisdiction, it’s not true, although depending on the method, the person could be tried for animal cruelty.
If a person decides to shoot their dog in the head to kill it – well, we may not recommend this as a form of euthanasia, but we’re unlikely to press charges (unless something goes gruesomely wrong).
If a person decides to drown their cat, however, we may be coming after them.
Animal cruelty laws do tend to require you to treat your own animals better than your neighbor’s: while you’re under no obligation to feed your neighbor’s dog, you can go to prison for starving your own dog to death.
Don’t take this as legal advice, naturally :).
Daniel
And I guess here is where we run into the limits of the concept of treating pets as possessions (or, alternatively, the interface between anti-cruelty laws and the right to dispose of possessions as you see fit). As far as I know, if for some reason you decide to trash your own car, there’s nothing illegal about it.
Naturally. But I don’t think I’ve given anyone here (other than Highwayman, for some bizarre reason) the idea that I’m harboring nefarious intentions towards pets, mine or anyone else’s. (If I have, that certainly wasn’t my intention.)
The short answer, both legally and ethically, is that you are only entitled to take such action as will reasonably correct the problem while causing the least harm to your neighbor’s property. As in:
-
Give the kid his kite back and tell him to be careful. Or throw the thing away.
-
Say “Shoo!”
-
Ask the neighbor to move his car and not do it again. On repeat occurrences or a refusal to move the car, it may be reasonable to call a tow truck.
In the original cases given (not all the wild assumptions made later) there is little evidence that any of the things would have caused any real harm. (What, the kite destroyed your lawn? How is that?) Therefore, absent any real harm, it would be hard to ethically justify much more than the options above.