Seriously? It’s been asked and answered, several times, by more than just me. And if you read the post just above yours, instead of making shit up, you’ll see that I don’t think the neighbors don’t have to compromise. You want to paint me as unreasonable so that you have something to rail against, but that’s just manufactured recreational outrage. Give it a fucking rest.
Capital letters always make up for a shortfall in rationality, don’t they? They’re so much more convincing…
Well, thank you so very much madam goddess of interpersonal behavior for granting your permission! So glad to have you available to clear up these little matters of etiquette. Me, I never know just when it is that somebody else’s problem inflicted on me in the quiet enjoyment of my own home is allowed to actually be unreasonable. So it is unreasonable for me to be upset while the neighbor inflicts her cats on me, but reasonable for me to be upset if she refuses my demand that they be neutered and vaccinated and ***still ***inflicted on me. Such a fine line you are able to draw! Good that you can speak so eloquently *ex cathedra *directly from your ass.
“Have the cats TNR’d” you suggest? Have them "T"rapped, "N"eutered and "R"eturned!?! At the OP’s expense, no doubt? And resulting in exactly the same situation as he has now. Cats, unwanted cats, somebody else’s or no one’s cats, all over his property. Great advance that is! Thanks again.
All right, genius, please note that the cats are a public health risk right now. They are a *risk *because their individual status as vectors of parasites and disease has not been tested, but many cats in similar situations harbor nasty things including rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, toxoplasmosis, fleas including fleas that can carry plague among a variety of deadly diseases, ticks including ticks that can carry Lyme disease among others, tapeworms, roundworms, flukes, and a host of additional problems transmissible to humans and/or other pets. That is the ultimate definition of risk.
If any of these animals should be demonstrated to actually have any of those noxious ailments, then we immediately graduate to “public health hazard” and at that point most health departments have rules under which swift intervention is mandatory.
Would that be your “Phase 2”? Frankly, I think the OP may prefer that it doesn’t get that far.
You know what? You’re not interested in being reasonable, at all. My suggestion, which is that he talks to his neighbor before taking action, is totally, 100% reasonable, rational, costs nothing, and has all the potential to make things better without pissing anyone off. You are incapable of acknowledging that, instead choosing to construct your own arguments, attribute them to me, and then light into them with the fury of a rabid fanatic. So there’s really no point in further conversation, is there? I think he should negotiate with his neighbor and both should engage in compromise. You don’t. Fine. That’s the end of this discussion, because obviously it’s going nowhere, fast.
Blah blah blah. Is your life really so sterile and protected that 5 semi tame cats are warrant a teeth gnashing “health threat”. For god’s sake go and live in a bottle.
And to the OP - congrats on the way that you handled this, you were upset about something and at least you had the rationality to discuss it with the neighbour.
That said, really, get your knickers in a twist much? oh deary me, I don’t like cats to occasionally run out of the bushes and scare my wife. What a shame - but again if that’s realy an issue go and live in a damn bubble.
Can a mod close this thread?
I don’t think we’re getting anywhere new, and I don’t think the parties still involved are going to change one another’s minds. If there are significant new developments, I’ll open another thread somewhere else.
Ditto.
I’m still a bit boggled by the repeated assertions that one of the ills the cats bring to the OP is that they “startle” his spouse by suddenly appearing.
Does this wear off after a few appearances, or is it always a surprise? What’s so bad about being startled by a small animal? Surely we’re not talking terror and alarm, are we? Is the spouse a canary or something?
Regarding the health threat the cats pose: yeah, possibly. I wonder how that compares statistically to the health threat of a neighbor shooting into the fence line, as some posters have suggested for dealing with this Serious Health Emergency.
Cats can be a nuisance, yeah. I suppose that a serious enough cat problem could rise to the level of middling nuisance.
The OP has asked for this thread to be closed. In keeping with my recent practice, I’ll close it in 24 hours (give or take) so that folks have time to object to the closure or get a final post in.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
Thanks, Gfactor. This may be the Pit, but facts remain facts.
Straight from this morning’s headlines (although the coincidence surprises even me) these stories:
This link includes the following:
Officials believe there may be more people affected as additional children may have played with this kitten. Also, it is believed to be one of a litter, and more people may have had contact with its siblings, making for additional concerns.
And this link tells a similar story but with even more people affected:
The later story is particularly significant because it involves a cat care-giver who does exactly as **Rubystreak **suggests-- she feeds cats and has them neutered and vaccinated. Obviously a significant “health risk” still remains when these actions are taken, as in this case where a full blown public health emergency has resulted.
Rubystreak, no hard feelings-- it was fun exchanging snark and witicisms with you and I never intended more than a vigorous discussion, which we had. But this particular subject can, sadly, have much deeper significance to people who have the bad luck to encounter that exceptional animal. For that reason I think the OP and all readers deserve to know the fullest measure of facts.
THespos, I hope you won’t be unduly alarmed or anything. These stories are indeed the exception, not the rule. Nevertheless, they do certainly occur. I would suggest you take whatever actions you deem necessary to gain quiet enjoyment of your home and to protect your family from potential hazard. Best of luck to you.
I wondered about that myself, but couldn’t think of a politic way to express it. It does seem a bit like reaching, unless the spouse really is frightened when the cats do their little appearing act. But squirrels and chipmunks and stuff do the exact same appearing act, so if she’s that frightened by the cats, she’s likely to be just as badly off when they’re gone.
Can we not harp on that?
It’s relatively minor in the bigger list of annoyances.
But I will say my wife is both easily startled and easily skeeved. This means I’m not only forever chasing bugs around the house to squash them (despite my having given the gift of a bug vacuum), but I’m also frequently warned never to startle her, as her heart jumps into her throat every time wildlife pops out.
THespos’ wife would die of cardiac arrest if she lived at my house, for sure.
I live in the country, and there are a LOT of animals wandering through or in permanent residence on my property: rabbits, deer, snakes, all manner of mice and mouse-like rodents, chipmunks, squirrels, possums, foxes, a huge colony of starlings and many other birds, crows, coyotes, and yes, random cats… I see most of these on a daily basis out there. I know for a fact they crap in my yard, eat my lawn, my compost, and each other, all within sight distance of my house. Some of them (the smaller ones) get in my house and have to be dealt with by my cats. All of them possible disease vectors. I can’t get all hysterical about it because, folks, get this-- the world is full of animals. Unlike cats, most of them cannot be TNR’d, so you pays your money and you takes your chances. So that’s why I can’t understand the freaking out about a few cats, when you have lots of reasonable options for dealing with them that can be quite amicable.
Oh, and for those of you saying that a cat on the loose is equivalent to a python, I offer this story as a compelling reason why they are not the same thing. 
I think all the folks get that point. Really.
The point that seems to be escaping you is that these particular animals in question are either owned by, or attracted by, the neighbor.
- Random wild animals that come into your yard = nobodies responsibility
- Pets that come into your yard = owners responsibility
- Strays that are fed by neighbor and come into your yard = neighbors responsibility
The responsibilities of the non-cat loving person? To solve the problem through respectful communication first, followed by legal humane methods second.
I look forward to seeing what other thoughts you kindly place in my head.
I don’t think they do. Really. As bengangmo so eloquently pointed out, you better go live in a bubble if you want to be safe from all those mangy disease vectors living out in the world. Neutered and vaccinated cats are much less of a risk than the totality of animal life in my yard right now. So you can get rid of the cats or force other people to do it. Great. I think I should just take napalm to my entire property and then pave it. I could, you know, then I’d be safe!
And I say really, if she is neutering and vaccinating them, big fucking deal. Others think it is a big fucking deal. On this I think we have to agree to disagree, no?
So it’s just that you want to blame someone (your harping on “responsibility”) for these animals being present in your yard, regardless of the actual risk posed? Because the wild animals in my yard pose equivalent or greater health risks, wouldn’t you say? But since they’re no one’s responsibility, the risk is not an issue? What exactly is your point?
My point is, you could just deal with some level of risk, being around animals that aren’t human that live outside. It’s not that hard, if the risk is reasonably managed, and you’re not a hysteric, that is.
This is just exactly what my stance has been all along. So what the hell is your problem with me? I don’t get it. Respectful communication, followed by legal, humane methods. So kindly get off my ass, will you?
I look forward to this thread being closed.
It really does not matter if you (or I for that matter) think it is a big fucking deal. What matters is if the OP thinks it is a big fucking deal. It is their home, and only they can make that judgement.
My point is that with pet ownership or animal feeding, there comes responsibility. Those who do that cannot simply say “its not a big fucking deal that my animals are on your property - live with it”
The amount of risk is immaterial to the debate. It is not up to you (or the cat-owning/feeding neighbor) to assess the level of risk that the OP must put up with. This issue of “risk level” is a red herring.
Well, see, we all have this thing called a critical faculty. You post your issue on a message board, and people are going to form a judgment about your issue, and whether or not you are making an unnecessarily big fucking deal over something. So yeah, the OP can make his judgment, and the rest of us reading about it can make ours. If you don’t want to hear other people’s judgments, blog about it and make your posts friends only. Or write it in your diary.
And… again… I am not suggesting that this be the outcome. This is very frustrating to me, having to say this over and over and OVER. So I won’t, and I’ll just assume you are enjoying bashing around your straw man.
Please tell CannyDan that the amount of risk is immaterial to the debate, because he sure keeps bringing it up, doesn’t he? Lots of articles and statistics about rabies and diseases, oh my! I think the risk level is absolutely material to the debate, because I personally don’t think you have the right to kill an animal that does not pose a meaningful risk to you, simply because it annoys you. Again, YMMV, and I don’t care if it does.
I think you might see where I might get the impression that you think it is not a big fucking deal that the animals are on the OP’s property.
Your reading comprehension needs a severe tuneup if you think that I have posited that anyone has the right to kill an animal simply because it annoys them. I have posted:
"The responsibilities of the non-cat loving person? To solve the problem through respectful communication first, followed by legal humane methods second.
But thanks for putting thoughts in my head. As long as we’re doing that, you seriously come across as someone who thinks:
“OMG, if people don’t accept my cute kitties living in their yard and crapping everywhere, then they must want to kill them! OMG! Cute Kitties!”
Yeah, I know how messy facts and such can really get in the way of a good old opinion-fest. Your opinion really does take priority, doesn’t it? Lucky for us this thread is about to be closed, because we sure don’t want anyone with inconvenient citations intruding on the fact-fighting here at SDMB!
(Hhhmmmm… Something in that last sentence doesn’t look quite right…)
It’s one thing to have a few laughs, or a few rants, on an internet message board. There is certainly no assurance that any information or advice seen here is to be trusted. Still, when anyone on such a board makes repeated, heated, insistent and authoritative exhortations including what can only be considered potentially dangerous advice, some counter-point may be reasonable.
In case anyone missed it the first time, since **Rubystreak **continues to insist on her own special evaluation of meaningful risk, I note that this is still today’s headline.
Eighteen people are being treated for rabies exposure, a bunch of them employees of an animal hospital. The woman was having the stray cats neutered and vaccinated, for crying out loud. If there is anything likely to show just how wrong **Rubystreak’s **risk assessment can be, I can’t imagine it. These people must each endure a painful, prolonged and quite expensive series of injections to protect them from a deadly disease.
And that, mind you, is after those people followed exactly the same course of action that **Rubystreak **advises the OP.
A course of action that still doesn’t get the unwanted felines, risky or not, off of the OP’s property. (Euphonious Polemic, you’re right, the risk is only a side issue. An important tangent, but tangential nonetheless.)
Yes, indeed, let this be closed. Far more than enough has already been said.
My opinion takes priority… no. But yours does, apparently. It’s the Only Right Way. You haven’t said a word about the risks taken by people like me, who live with many, many more animals on their property, all of which are wild, all of which could be disease vectors. Why? Because the world is full of animals. You take a risk walking out of your house, every single day. Right?
The only person making authoritative statements or claiming to be an expert is you, Danny Boy. The only thing I’ve actively advocated is talking to the neighbor before taking action. You don’t even think that should be done, and that makes you UNreasonable.
And this one cite is somehow universal, and means all outdoor cats should be eradicated, right? Because if your pet is vaccinated and you let him outside, then he is in the same category of risk as these neutered, vaccinated ferals (who somehow had kittens AND got rabies). Correct? If not, please articulate the difference. If, as you say, the lady with the ferals in the article did indeed neuter and vaccinate, consistently, all the cats, yet somehow they STILL had kittens and got rabies, then no outdoor cat could be trusted. All are disease risks, none should be tolerated. Nor should all those unvaccinated raccoons, foxes, coyotes, and other animals that are in my yard regularly. The all must GO if we are to be safe. If I got that wrong, please correct me. I know that you will.
There is a reasonable risk that one must take, if one desires not to live in a bubble. That risk is not zero. There are animals out there, all over the place, for chrissakes. You can’t eliminate them all. Where you place the line for acceptable risk is obviously different from mine, but that does not mean that yours is RIGHT and everyone else’s is wrong, or that the OP should listen to your dire fearmongering over his own sense of the situation.
God, your density approaches that of a neutron star. Risk is meaningful, because you can’t reduce your risk to zero and still live in a world with other animals. The OP has taken measures to keep the cats off his property. That’s really all anyone can do to keep any unwanted animals, be they cats, squirrels, bats, possums, raccoons, mice, or any other disease vector away. Can’t kill 'em all, Dan.
But I bet you have more to say. I bet.
Are you suggesting that the wounded kitten which exposed these folks to rabies was born to one of the neutered cats, or given the disease by one of the vaccinated cats?