If these cats are indeed “outdoor pets”, then the owner of the pets has a responsibility to keep them from bothering neighbors, whether there is a law about outdoor cats or not. Bothering neighbors does not have to rise to the level of significant cost to property. It may be as simple as not wanting cat poop in the flower bed. If you own an animal that regularly craps on my property, it is THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY to stop it. Owners of pets have responsibilities. Who knew?
If on the other hand, these cats are merely being fed by the neighbor, then they are not fully responsible for their behaviours. However, they would be responsible for attracting pest animals. In the same way, if I deliberately fed rats in my backyard, I would be responsible for the damage they caused. In this case, the neighbors would have no say over what happens to cats, as they are not the cats “owners”.
And once again, my opinion is as follows: level with your neighbors about your concerns, and offer some compromise solutions (hint: destruction of cats is not going to be seen as a compromise). Then, if the neighbors are unreasonable, then they leave you no choice but to look into solutions without their cooperation.
Much as the OP (THespos) has done. Hats off to him/her. He was lucky in that he knew where the cats were coming from. Many of us who have random unlabeled defecating cats in our yards are not so lucky. Where are these cats from? Who knows. It’s not up to me to wander the neighborhood knocking on doors asking if anyone is leaving food out for stray cats, and may I pretty please have their permission to keep said cats from crapping in my vegetables.
Sort of. He spoke to the husband, not the wife, and he wants the cats removed, period. What if the neighbor doesn’t want that? She might have an emotional attachment to the cats, at which you might scoff, but which might make her less than amenable to agreeing to their deaths. Is he willing to compromise? You probably don’t think he should be nor should he have to. I disagree, for many reasons. Thus, we are at an impasse in the conversation. I accept that my ideas about what’s right in this situation are likely different from yours. But if only for the sake of neighborly relations, my feeling is that it’s inadvisable to take a “my way or the highway” approach. YMMV.
You are certainly free to take whatever non-lethal precautions you need to take to keep them out. I’m not ever going to agree with people who say that you have the right to kill any animal on your property just because it annoys you. Again, I’m willing to agree to disagree about this.
<rereads what she wrote, sees that the person assuming too much and taking things too personally is not her>
<gets annoyed at this bullshit format of posting, because it’s stupid>
The OP, whom you are defending, has made it clear that he will not be satisfied with a solution short of removing the cats, which is likely to mean their deaths. As you appear to be supporting his stance, then you are scoffing at the neighbor lady’s attachment to the cats and saying that he has the right to kill them (or have someone else do it for him) because they annoy him. Thus, my response to you is not “assuming too much.” It’s right in line with what you’re implying with your posts.
Well, duh. And you say I’M the one assuming too much? Yes, of course they do. If I’ve ever said otherwise, I’d love you to show me where.
Nice play on the word “damage.” What’s the repair bill when a cat shits in your garden, leaves dead vermin on your porch, startles your wife, and generally interferes with the enjoyment of said property? I think you understood the concept of damaged property, and are being disingenuous in your response.
Bullshit! He has made it clear that he doesn’t give a fuck about what happens to the cats as long as they stay off of his property. How that is achieved is immaterial to him, and not his problem unless the neighbors decline to act. It is their job to control their animals, not his.
Did we miss the post where I said I bought two of the scarecrow sprinklers and listed solutions that involve the death of the cats (humorously referred to as “the nuclear option”) further down the list?
Scarecrow sprinklers aren’t here yet. Apparently priority shipping means “when we get around to it.”
All of this said, I’m perfectly within my rights to sit out on my back patio with my pellet gun and shoot any cats that come into my yard. Again, though, I’m hoping to keep myself on the neighbors’ good side.
Rubystreak, I doubt I can do much to alleviate your raised eyebrow. I could take pictures of the damage to the underside of the RV, but I’m guessing you’ll claim that’s not proof that it was the cats that did it, despite the fact that I saw them doing it. I haven’t been underneath yet, but it looks like they ripped out some of the insulation. No idea whether there’s any other damage, but from what I can see it looks like it’s something that could be solved with a little duct tape. Still, it shouldn’t be my responsibility to keep other people’s animals from damaging my property. (It should be the responsibility of a robotic sprinkler, dammit!)
If you had not seen it with your own eyes I would have blamed squirrels. Sounds like they might be trying to make a shelter in there – kittens on the way? I hope you mention this to the neighbor – maybe that will speed up getting the cats neutered.
Brainstorming – could there be mice in your RV? Anything that would excite and tempt the cats?
C
[quote=“THespos, post:209, topic:499548”]
. . . I saw them doing it. I haven’t been underneath yet, but it looks like they ripped out some of the insulation. No idea whether there’s any other damage, but from what I can see it looks like it’s something that could be solved with a little duct tape. Still, it shouldn’t be my responsibility to keep other people’s animals from damaging my property. . . .
This is really ridiculous-- but that is typical of these discussions, and is the reason the OP’s situation is so difficult to resolve in the real world.
What exactly is it about cats that allows them this blanket relief from responsibility? What if it were a dog (owned or unowned) that jumped out of the OP’s bushes and startled his wife? A neighbor’s goat climbing up the hood of his car? The horse from down the block crapping on the petunias? The neighbor’s 12 foot python sunning itself on his porch? (Not uncommon here, by the way.) Someone’s alpaca eating his roses? (Also not unheard of here.) A wandering pot bellied pig leaving “presents and offerings” on his porch? All of these are animals often maintained as pets and kept in neighborhoods surrounded by other people’s homes.
In none of those instances would we be having this idiotic discussion of “fairness” to the person who aids and abets the wayward critter by feeding but failing to control it. No lengthy questioning of whether the OP is justified in feeling put upon, or requiring him to prove actual monetary damages. No requirement that he go out of his way to accept the intrusion because the real offender, the person feeding the animal, might have tender sensibilities. If it were any animal other than a cat, the alternatives would be clear and its removal immediate and uncontroversial.
Well, let me say once again, the alternatives ARE clear and they apply to all the above critters, AND to cats.
The neighbor woman can:
claim the cats as her own, and then take whatever steps are necessary to keep them on her own property. She can keep them indoors, or build them whatever size and kind of enclosure, indoors or out, that she feels necessary. She can then ensure that they have proper food and water, necessary shelter from the elements including heat of summer and cold of winter, and proper medical care. Note that “proper medical care” does not mean an occasional random vaccination-- ask a vet what cats, even healthy cats, should have as routine care. Mine have annual examinations, renewal of necessary innoculations, and prompt treatment of any “issues” that are discovered. Oh, yes, they are also neutered and microchipped.
Or the woman can:
disown the cats, stating (truthfully I assume) that they appeared at her door and she was merely trying to help them out but does not consider herself their owner, thus not responsible for their proper care. In that case, the OP is perfectly entitled to trap the ones that enter his own property, and turn them over to his local Animal Control agency. Their disposition from that point on should not be the controlling factor in his decision to rid himself of the nuisance. He should not be made to feel guilt for resolving an intollerable situation that he did not cause.
Anything else is a ridiculous intrusion on the OP.
CannyDan does have a point. The neighbor woman shouldn’t get to have it both ways. They can’t be a pet when someone wants them removed but wildlife when they’re asked to take responsibility for them.
Wha? There’s no play on the word. He said they were damaging his RV. I said it didn’t sound like something outdoor only cats would do.
I think you should go back to arguing nonsense with billfish, because there’s nothing disingenuous about my response. Shitting in the garden sucks. You get your lawn scarecrow and your super soaker and you keep them out. Dead vermin on the porch? Be thankful they’re not in your house. Startles your wife? That’s a damage now? Whatever.
Not the one who cares about the cat, he hasn’t. It’s not clear to me what will happen next with that, since removal is probably not an option for the lady, though THespos says he has since backed off his stance that destruction is the only option.
Speaking of idiotic and disingenuous things to say:
Hmmm, why DO people have a different attitude toward cats than they do towards dogs, goats, and pythons? Why don’t you tell us, Dan?
No one has even talked to her about this, so there’s no way to tell if she’s trying to have it both ways. And to see it as a binary, like “those cats are my precious pets” and “those cats are totally wild” is reducing it to two options when it really sits in the grey area in between.
You call the OP a liar, hand waving away the fact that he witnesses the cats doing something that he believes to be causing damage to his RV. And you can do this with authority, since it doesn’t meet your preconceptions of cat behavior ("…doesn’t sound like something…"). Your beliefs clearly trump his observations.
Then you go on to gratuitously insult the rest of us.
Why indeed do people assume things about cats, and proffer dispensations to them that they themselves would not apply to another animal in the same situation? I’m certain that I do not know the answer. Perhaps I haven’t taken enough psychology courses to understand this aberrant behavior.
But understand it or not, I recognize that it exists, as your own posts make abundantly clear.
Ya know, people around here do this all the time, doubt the word of someone who is trying to make their case in the Pit. Skepticism, it’s called. I didn’t call him a liar, but no, it doesn’t sound like something outdoor cats would do. I’m not obliged to take his word for it. Sorry if that bothers you.
Gratuitously? This is the Pit, and I think overall, considering the “Fuck you” that the OP threw out earlier, and some other nastiness in this thread not involving me (see the Contrapuntal v. billfish dustup), that you’re getting all huffy over nothing much.
You’re plenty unpleasant yourself, Dan. You’re making a lot of assumptions about me and my “aberrant psychology” based on the fact that I disagree with you about how to deal with the neighbors. The cats are incidental, really, because, and listen carefully: I don’t believe in allowing pet cats outdoors, and I do not think it’s OK for feral cats to wander the neighborhood, unneutered and unvaccinated. I’ve said this over and over and you’ve ignored it so that you can keep making your point. The bottom line is, the OP wants to have good relations with his neighbors, so he shouldn’t take your hard ass, “my way is the RIGHT WAY to deal with these cats, or else!” stance. Behavior like that is the hallmark of a jerk who is bound to have problems in the neighborhood.
