PDA

View Full Version : WARNING: Angry neighbor has cat euthanized


MaryL
April 17th 06, 03:34 PM
CNN.com is carrying a news report about a man who didn't get along with his
neighbor and who trapped her cat in his yard and dropped the cat off at the
local shelter to be euthanized. The woman searched the neighborhood for two
days before going to the shelter, only to be told that the cat had been
euthanized that day.

What scum! He says there are "two sides to every story." I can only
surmise that he means that she didn't keep her cat at home. Incidents like
this is only one of the reasons I think cats should be kept indoors for
their own safety (and also to protect birds, etc.). In this case, the
shelter was able to identify the man, and he has issued a "desk appearance
ticket." I hope they give him the maximum penalty for the offenses listed
and don't just treat that poor cat as "mere property."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/17/cat.euthanized.ap/index.html

MaryL

PawsForThought
April 17th 06, 05:35 PM
That really is horrible :( If he was having a problem with the cats,
he should have made a formal complaint, not do what he did. This is
exactly one of the reasons I keep my cats indoors.

Matthew AKA NMR
April 17th 06, 05:57 PM
The neighbor would be running for his life if that happened to me I would
welcome the jail sentence afterwards

A couple good reason to keep your cat in doors but if you must let them out
MICROCHIP
What a screwed up shelter 2 days than kill the cat not even enough time to
see if it could be adopted

"MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> CNN.com is carrying a news report about a man who didn't get along with
> his neighbor and who trapped her cat in his yard and dropped the cat off
> at the local shelter to be euthanized. The woman searched the
> neighborhood for two days before going to the shelter, only to be told
> that the cat had been euthanized that day.
>
> What scum! He says there are "two sides to every story." I can only
> surmise that he means that she didn't keep her cat at home. Incidents
> like this is only one of the reasons I think cats should be kept indoors
> for their own safety (and also to protect birds, etc.). In this case, the
> shelter was able to identify the man, and he has issued a "desk appearance
> ticket." I hope they give him the maximum penalty for the offenses listed
> and don't just treat that poor cat as "mere property."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/17/cat.euthanized.ap/index.html
>
> MaryL
>

-L.
April 17th 06, 06:01 PM
MaryL wrote:
> CNN.com is carrying a news report about a man who didn't get along with his
> neighbor and who trapped her cat in his yard and dropped the cat off at the
> local shelter to be euthanized. The woman searched the neighborhood for two
> days before going to the shelter, only to be told that the cat had been
> euthanized that day.
>
> What scum! He says there are "two sides to every story." I can only
> surmise that he means that she didn't keep her cat at home. Incidents like
> this is only one of the reasons I think cats should be kept indoors for
> their own safety (and also to protect birds, etc.). In this case, the
> shelter was able to identify the man, and he has issued a "desk appearance
> ticket." I hope they give him the maximum penalty for the offenses listed
> and don't just treat that poor cat as "mere property."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/17/cat.euthanized.ap/index.html
>
> MaryL

I don't have any problem trapping and turning in rogue cats that ****
on my property time and time again. Have done it a number of times.
People need to respect their neighbors and when I end up cleaning up
cat **** and **** (on doors, furniture, wood pile, etc - rendering
these items useless), making sure my son isn't exposed to it, and
taking my dog to the vet for worms acquired from other people's cats,
that's it. After so many "discussions" where the neighbors basically
don't give a **** about you, your family or your property, what other
recourse does one have? I have a dog and two cats and my animals (and
family) stay on my own property - I expect the same courtesy from my
neighbors. If I were able to catch and turn in the dogs that **** on
my lawn all the time, I'd do that as well.

I haven't read the article - suspect this guy was well within his legal
rights to do so. In most places, he would be.

-L.

-L.
April 17th 06, 06:03 PM
Matthew AKA NMR wrote:
> The neighbor would be running for his life if that happened to me I would
> welcome the jail sentence afterwards
>
> A couple good reason to keep your cat in doors but if you must let them out
> MICROCHIP
> What a screwed up shelter 2 days than kill the cat not even enough time to
> see if it could be adopted

A lot of them do. Many kill on intake if they are too full.
Looks like the guy lied and said it was his cat, which is a totally
****ty thing to do.

-L.

MaryL
April 17th 06, 06:23 PM
"-L." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> MaryL wrote:
>> CNN.com is carrying a news report about a man who didn't get along with
>> his
>> neighbor and who trapped her cat in his yard and dropped the cat off at
>> the
>> local shelter to be euthanized. The woman searched the neighborhood for
>> two
>> days before going to the shelter, only to be told that the cat had been
>> euthanized that day.
>>
>> What scum! He says there are "two sides to every story." I can only
>> surmise that he means that she didn't keep her cat at home. Incidents
>> like
>> this is only one of the reasons I think cats should be kept indoors for
>> their own safety (and also to protect birds, etc.). In this case, the
>> shelter was able to identify the man, and he has issued a "desk
>> appearance
>> ticket." I hope they give him the maximum penalty for the offenses
>> listed
>> and don't just treat that poor cat as "mere property."
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/17/cat.euthanized.ap/index.html
>>
>> MaryL
>
> I don't have any problem trapping and turning in rogue cats that ****
> on my property time and time again. Have done it a number of times.
> People need to respect their neighbors and when I end up cleaning up
> cat **** and **** (on doors, furniture, wood pile, etc - rendering
> these items useless), making sure my son isn't exposed to it, and
> taking my dog to the vet for worms acquired from other people's cats,
> that's it. After so many "discussions" where the neighbors basically
> don't give a **** about you, your family or your property, what other
> recourse does one have? I have a dog and two cats and my animals (and
> family) stay on my own property - I expect the same courtesy from my
> neighbors. If I were able to catch and turn in the dogs that **** on
> my lawn all the time, I'd do that as well.
>
> I haven't read the article - suspect this guy was well within his legal
> rights to do so. In most places, he would be.
>
> -L.
>

No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn the cat
into the shelter. He claimed the cat was his and left it with orders to
euthanize. According to the article, he has been charged with "charged with
criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property and making a
punishable false written statement."

I agree that people who permit their pets to have the run of other people's
property are inconsiderate neighbors who deserve to be fined, but I do *not*
agree that anyone has the right to trap and secretly have a cat or dog
euthanized. The cat has been punished for something that was caused either
by the owner or by both the owner and the neighbor. My own two are
indoor-only, both for their protection (*most especially* for that purpose)
and to protect other animals and my neighbors' rights.

MaryL

Toni
April 17th 06, 06:35 PM
"MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote
> No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn the cat
> into the shelter. He claimed the cat was his and left it with orders to
> euthanize. According to the article, he has been charged with "charged
> with criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property and making
> a punishable false written statement."
>


*And* he has done it before- in 1998, and again in 2002- to the same family.

You gotta wonder though, why they continued to get more cats and let them
run free, knowing what happened to the others.

I agree the man is a scoundrel- but he couldn't have trapped them had they
been kept at home where they belonged.


--
Toni
http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com

MaryL
April 17th 06, 08:08 PM
"Toni" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote
>> No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn the cat
>> into the shelter. He claimed the cat was his and left it with orders to
>> euthanize. According to the article, he has been charged with "charged
>> with criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property and making
>> a punishable false written statement."
>>
>
>
> *And* he has done it before- in 1998, and again in 2002- to the same
> family.
>
> You gotta wonder though, why they continued to get more cats and let them
> run free, knowing what happened to the others.
>
> I agree the man is a scoundrel- but he couldn't have trapped them had they
> been kept at home where they belonged.
>
>
> --
> Toni
> http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
>


Exactly! On all counts. The man is scum, but so is the neighbor who would
continue letting cats roam if this has happened before. I cringe at the
thought of both of them. I hope he gets the maximum penalty and only wish
there were similar charges that could also be brought against the poor cat's
"owner."

MaryL

MaryL
April 17th 06, 08:09 PM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>>
>> "-L." > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> MaryL wrote:
>>>> CNN.com is carrying a news report about a man who didn't get
>>>> along with his
>>>> neighbor and who trapped her cat in his yard and dropped the cat
>>>> off at the
>>>> local shelter to be euthanized. The woman searched the
>>>> neighborhood for two
>>>> days before going to the shelter, only to be told that the cat
>>>> had been euthanized that day.
>>>>
>>>> What scum! He says there are "two sides to every story." I can
>>>> only surmise that he means that she didn't keep her cat at home.
>>>> Incidents like
>>>> this is only one of the reasons I think cats should be kept
>>>> indoors for their own safety (and also to protect birds, etc.).
>>>> In this case, the shelter was able to identify the man, and he
>>>> has issued a "desk appearance
>>>> ticket." I hope they give him the maximum penalty for the
>>>> offenses listed
>>>> and don't just treat that poor cat as "mere property."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/17/cat.euthanized.ap/index.html
>>>>
>>>> MaryL
>>>
>>> I don't have any problem trapping and turning in rogue cats that
>>> **** on my property time and time again. Have done it a number
>>> of times. People need to respect their neighbors and when I end
>>> up cleaning up cat **** and **** (on doors, furniture, wood pile,
>>> etc - rendering these items useless), making sure my son isn't
>>> exposed to it, and taking my dog to the vet for worms acquired
>>> from other people's cats, that's it. After so many "discussions"
>>> where the neighbors basically don't give a **** about you, your
>>> family or your property, what other recourse does one have? I
>>> have a dog and two cats and my animals (and family) stay on my
>>> own property - I expect the same courtesy from my neighbors. If
>>> I were able to catch and turn in the dogs that **** on my lawn
>>> all the time, I'd do that as well.
>>>
>>> I haven't read the article - suspect this guy was well within his
>>> legal rights to do so. In most places, he would be.
>>>
>>> -L.
>>>
>>
>> No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn
>> the cat into the shelter. He claimed the cat was his and left it
>> with orders to euthanize. According to the article, he has been
>> charged with "charged with criminal mischief, criminal possession
>> of stolen property and making a punishable false written
>> statement."
>>
>> I agree that people who permit their pets to have the run of other
>> people's property are inconsiderate neighbors who deserve to be
>> fined, but I do *not* agree that anyone has the right to trap and
>> secretly have a cat or dog euthanized. The cat has been punished
>> for something that was caused either by the owner or by both the
>> owner and the neighbor. My own two are indoor-only, both for
>> their protection (*most especially* for that purpose) and to
>> protect other animals and my neighbors' rights.
>>
>> MaryL
>>
>>
>>
>
> My boss has a neighbor cat that is constantly messing up his
> flowerbeds with the digging and pooping, etc. He's also deathly
> allergic and often can't work in the beds unless they've been
> recently watered. For a while sprinkling coffee grounds worked, but
> apparently the cat doesn't care anymore, and talking to the neighbor
> does nothing. He doesn't think he should trap it simply because he
> knows where it belongs and otherwise gets along well with his
> neighbor. If only people with roaming cats could be so considerate.
>
> I don't agree with what the guy did. It's horrible. But I
> understand the frustration. There is a new cat here who has a
> greeting meow of a solid 5 seconds, and she "greets" me at 6:00 a.m.
> at my window when I don't have to be up until 7:00. Bootie still
> comes by, but he's moved on to the front door, thank god. How any
> of them remember where I live after roaming the community is beyond
> me.
>
> --
> Brandy Alexandre
>
> --Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

Yes, horrible is the word -- and I do also understand the frustration when
people will not control their own pets. And it *is* the fault of
inconsiderate owners, not the fault of the the cats or dogs.

MaryL

PawsForThought
April 17th 06, 08:39 PM
Toni wrote:
> *And* he has done it before- in 1998, and again in 2002- to the same family.
>
> You gotta wonder though, why they continued to get more cats and let them
> run free, knowing what happened to the others.

What?!! You have got to be kidding me! I think both parties in this
case is disgusting excuses for human beings.

cybercat
April 17th 06, 09:15 PM
"PawsForThought" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Toni wrote:
> > *And* he has done it before- in 1998, and again in 2002- to the same
family.
> >
> > You gotta wonder though, why they continued to get more cats and let
them
> > run free, knowing what happened to the others.
>
> What?!! You have got to be kidding me! I think both parties in this
> case is disgusting excuses for human beings.
>

I can't even bring myself to read the original post.

-L.
April 18th 06, 01:33 AM
MaryL wrote:
> No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn the cat
> into the shelter.

I meant well within his right to trap the cat ands turn it in. I read
later that the guy lied about the cat being his - that's just assholy.

He claimed the cat was his and left it with orders to
> euthanize. According to the article, he has been charged with "charged with
> criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property and making a
> punishable false written statement."
>
> I agree that people who permit their pets to have the run of other people's
> property are inconsiderate neighbors who deserve to be fined, but I do *not*
> agree that anyone has the right to trap and secretly have a cat or dog
> euthanized. The cat has been punished for something that was caused either
> by the owner or by both the owner and the neighbor. My own two are
> indoor-only, both for their protection (*most especially* for that purpose)
> and to protect other animals and my neighbors' rights.

If the people keep getting cats and letting them roam, they are
culpable as well. Can't hardly bitch and moan that your cat is dead
when this is the 2nd or 3rd you've let end up this way...and of course
it was a purebred <rolling eyes>.
-L.

RobZip
April 19th 06, 11:14 AM
"PawsForThought" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That really is horrible :( If he was having a problem with the cats,
> he should have made a formal complaint, not do what he did.

The tone of the article suggests the problem had nothing to do with the cat.
Grabbing the cat was a really low form of retaliation.

Bianca L via CatKB.com
April 19th 06, 04:27 PM
You know I have read about this story. I just keep raising my eyebrows. I
don't know if there are actually 2 sides to every story, but for once I would
like to hear his version.

I work at an animal shelter. All animals that come in as strays with no ID
get a 72 hour hold. Animals with ID get at least a five day hold. So even
at that. If this guy brought the cat into a shelter as a stray. Why didn't
the family go looking for it at the shelter the day it came up missing? After
all, he has done this before. Common sense would tell anyone where to go. Of
course common sense would tell anyone if you got a happy trapper neighbor
your best bet is to keep the critter inside or move.

Now with that if he brought the cat into be euthanized then why doesn't the
shelter have records of his history with them? Why didn't anyone raise an
eyebrow? Unless they changed computer systems. Also, our shelter will NOT
euthanize an animal if nothing is wrong with it. Meaning you can't just walk
in to our shelter and put your pet to sleep because you don't like it. If we
see no health problems we will ask for vet records. If you can't produce them
we are not doing it. With that, that same rule applies to any vet in our area.


Most importantly, this whole situation could have been prevented a lot of
ways. This is another reason why I am an advocate for microchips. Animals get
scanned when they come in, get scanned when they get proccessed. Get scanned
again if they move over to adoptions, get scanned again when they get adopted
and get a microchip implant. If the pets doesn't make it to adoptions then it
gets scanned before they put it down. It doesn't matter if it's an owner
release, or stray. All animals have to be scanned no matter what and all
microchips have to be traced back to the owner.

Microchips are the cheapest way to secure ownership of a pet. Pets can loose
collars but rarely will a microchip migrate out of the body.

Toni wrote:
>> No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn the cat
>> into the shelter. He claimed the cat was his and left it with orders to
>> euthanize. According to the article, he has been charged with "charged
>> with criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property and making
>> a punishable false written statement."
>
>*And* he has done it before- in 1998, and again in 2002- to the same family.
>
>You gotta wonder though, why they continued to get more cats and let them
>run free, knowing what happened to the others.
>
>I agree the man is a scoundrel- but he couldn't have trapped them had they
>been kept at home where they belonged.
>

--
Message posted via CatKB.com
http://www.catkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/cat-health/200604/1

Matthew AKA NMR
April 19th 06, 05:32 PM
Not all shelters have intelligent people working for them and if it was a
private shelter with no county or city ties. Most can do as they please if
regulations are weak.

"Bianca L via CatKB.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> You know I have read about this story. I just keep raising my eyebrows. I
> don't know if there are actually 2 sides to every story, but for once I
> would
> like to hear his version.
>
> I work at an animal shelter. All animals that come in as strays with no ID
> get a 72 hour hold. Animals with ID get at least a five day hold. So
> even
> at that. If this guy brought the cat into a shelter as a stray. Why didn't
> the family go looking for it at the shelter the day it came up missing?
> After
> all, he has done this before. Common sense would tell anyone where to go.
> Of
> course common sense would tell anyone if you got a happy trapper neighbor
> your best bet is to keep the critter inside or move.
>
> Now with that if he brought the cat into be euthanized then why doesn't
> the
> shelter have records of his history with them? Why didn't anyone raise an
> eyebrow? Unless they changed computer systems. Also, our shelter will NOT
> euthanize an animal if nothing is wrong with it. Meaning you can't just
> walk
> in to our shelter and put your pet to sleep because you don't like it. If
> we
> see no health problems we will ask for vet records. If you can't produce
> them
> we are not doing it. With that, that same rule applies to any vet in our
> area.
>
>
> Most importantly, this whole situation could have been prevented a lot of
> ways. This is another reason why I am an advocate for microchips. Animals
> get
> scanned when they come in, get scanned when they get proccessed. Get
> scanned
> again if they move over to adoptions, get scanned again when they get
> adopted
> and get a microchip implant. If the pets doesn't make it to adoptions then
> it
> gets scanned before they put it down. It doesn't matter if it's an owner
> release, or stray. All animals have to be scanned no matter what and all
> microchips have to be traced back to the owner.
>
> Microchips are the cheapest way to secure ownership of a pet. Pets can
> loose
> collars but rarely will a microchip migrate out of the body.
>
> Toni wrote:
>>> No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn the
>>> cat
>>> into the shelter. He claimed the cat was his and left it with orders to
>>> euthanize. According to the article, he has been charged with "charged
>>> with criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property and
>>> making
>>> a punishable false written statement."
>>
>>*And* he has done it before- in 1998, and again in 2002- to the same
>>family.
>>
>>You gotta wonder though, why they continued to get more cats and let them
>>run free, knowing what happened to the others.
>>
>>I agree the man is a scoundrel- but he couldn't have trapped them had they
>>been kept at home where they belonged.
>>
>
> --
> Message posted via CatKB.com
> http://www.catkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/cat-health/200604/1

Wendy
April 24th 06, 01:33 PM
Around here, at least, there are more than one variety of microchip being
used and one brand scanner doesn't pick up another variety of chip. Wish
they would get it together so the chips could really do what they were
intended to.


"Bianca L via CatKB.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> You know I have read about this story. I just keep raising my eyebrows. I
> don't know if there are actually 2 sides to every story, but for once I
> would
> like to hear his version.
>
> I work at an animal shelter. All animals that come in as strays with no ID
> get a 72 hour hold. Animals with ID get at least a five day hold. So
> even
> at that. If this guy brought the cat into a shelter as a stray. Why didn't
> the family go looking for it at the shelter the day it came up missing?
> After
> all, he has done this before. Common sense would tell anyone where to go.
> Of
> course common sense would tell anyone if you got a happy trapper neighbor
> your best bet is to keep the critter inside or move.
>
> Now with that if he brought the cat into be euthanized then why doesn't
> the
> shelter have records of his history with them? Why didn't anyone raise an
> eyebrow? Unless they changed computer systems. Also, our shelter will NOT
> euthanize an animal if nothing is wrong with it. Meaning you can't just
> walk
> in to our shelter and put your pet to sleep because you don't like it. If
> we
> see no health problems we will ask for vet records. If you can't produce
> them
> we are not doing it. With that, that same rule applies to any vet in our
> area.
>
>
> Most importantly, this whole situation could have been prevented a lot of
> ways. This is another reason why I am an advocate for microchips. Animals
> get
> scanned when they come in, get scanned when they get proccessed. Get
> scanned
> again if they move over to adoptions, get scanned again when they get
> adopted
> and get a microchip implant. If the pets doesn't make it to adoptions then
> it
> gets scanned before they put it down. It doesn't matter if it's an owner
> release, or stray. All animals have to be scanned no matter what and all
> microchips have to be traced back to the owner.
>
> Microchips are the cheapest way to secure ownership of a pet. Pets can
> loose
> collars but rarely will a microchip migrate out of the body.
>
> Toni wrote:
>>> No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn the
>>> cat
>>> into the shelter. He claimed the cat was his and left it with orders to
>>> euthanize. According to the article, he has been charged with "charged
>>> with criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property and
>>> making
>>> a punishable false written statement."
>>
>>*And* he has done it before- in 1998, and again in 2002- to the same
>>family.
>>
>>You gotta wonder though, why they continued to get more cats and let them
>>run free, knowing what happened to the others.
>>
>>I agree the man is a scoundrel- but he couldn't have trapped them had they
>>been kept at home where they belonged.
>>
>
> --
> Message posted via CatKB.com
> http://www.catkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/cat-health/200604/1

Wendy
April 24th 06, 01:37 PM
"-L." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> MaryL wrote:
>> No, he wasn't within his rights because he did far more than turn the cat
>> into the shelter.
>
> I meant well within his right to trap the cat ands turn it in. I read
> later that the guy lied about the cat being his - that's just assholy.
>
> He claimed the cat was his and left it with orders to
>> euthanize. According to the article, he has been charged with "charged
>> with
>> criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property and making a
>> punishable false written statement."
>>
>> I agree that people who permit their pets to have the run of other
>> people's
>> property are inconsiderate neighbors who deserve to be fined, but I do
>> *not*
>> agree that anyone has the right to trap and secretly have a cat or dog
>> euthanized. The cat has been punished for something that was caused
>> either
>> by the owner or by both the owner and the neighbor. My own two are
>> indoor-only, both for their protection (*most especially* for that
>> purpose)
>> and to protect other animals and my neighbors' rights.
>
> If the people keep getting cats and letting them roam, they are
> culpable as well. Can't hardly bitch and moan that your cat is dead
> when this is the 2nd or 3rd you've let end up this way...and of course
> it was a purebred <rolling eyes>.
> -L.
>

You'd think the breeder would refuse to give them a cat. Our rescue group
sure would.

Larry R Harrison Jr
April 24th 06, 11:42 PM
I agree with this person who said:

> I don't have any problem trapping and turning in rogue cats that **** on
> my property time and time again. Have done it a number of times. People
> need to respect their neighbors and when I end up cleaning up cat **** and
> **** (on doors, furniture, wood pile, etc - rendering these items
> useless), making sure my son isn't exposed to it, and taking my dog to
> the vet for worms acquired from other people's cats, that's it. After so
> many "discussions" where the neighbors basically
> don't give a **** about you, your family or your property, what other
> recourse does one have? I have a dog and two cats and my animals (and
> family) stay on my own property - I expect the same courtesy from my
> neighbors. If I were able to catch and turn in the dogs that **** on my
> lawn all the time, I'd do that as well.
>

I could not agree more with this poster, and to those that say "well an
innocent cat shouldn't suffer," I agree--but even in regards to that the
onus should be on the irresponsible owner, not the victimized neighbor who
is merely trying to protect one's property.

The only change I might would've done compared to this guy is I might have
trapped the animal and then, rather than taking it to the shelter to be
euthanized, I'd either (a) inform the neighbor that I had their animal, and
then give them a suitable dressing down on how to be a good neighbor and
take care of their own problems, or (b) assuming I didn't get in any legal
trouble for it, I'd trap the animal and then head straight for animal
control and tell them who the animal belonged to and file a complaint on the
spot.

I think I'd lean towards option (b); that way, the person would get their
animal back, but they'd also (hopefully) get an earful from animal control
about how they need to control their animals to prevent future problems.
That way, the animal doesn't suffer, the property owner protects his/her
property--which to me is the most important thing in all of this, his/her
rights as a property owner to keep nuisances out no matter what it takes,
and lastly (and almost as important) the irresponsible pet owner gets a
lesson in responsibililty and maybe they'll learn and do better.

LRH

super-b
May 5th 06, 01:50 AM
Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> I agree with this person who said:
>
> > I don't have any problem trapping and turning in rogue cats that **** on
> > my property time and time again. Have done it a number of times. People
> > need to respect their neighbors and when I end up cleaning up cat **** and
> > **** (on doors, furniture, wood pile, etc - rendering these items
> > useless), making sure my son isn't exposed to it, and taking my dog to
> > the vet for worms acquired from other people's cats, that's it. After so
> > many "discussions" where the neighbors basically
> > don't give a **** about you, your family or your property, what other
> > recourse does one have? I have a dog and two cats and my animals (and
> > family) stay on my own property - I expect the same courtesy from my
> > neighbors. If I were able to catch and turn in the dogs that **** on my
> > lawn all the time, I'd do that as well.
> >
>
> I could not agree more with this poster, and to those that say "well an
> innocent cat shouldn't suffer," I agree--but even in regards to that the
> onus should be on the irresponsible owner, not the victimized neighbor who
> is merely trying to protect one's property.
>
> The only change I might would've done compared to this guy is I might have
> trapped the animal and then, rather than taking it to the shelter to be
> euthanized, I'd either (a) inform the neighbor that I had their animal, and
> then give them a suitable dressing down on how to be a good neighbor and
> take care of their own problems, or (b) assuming I didn't get in any legal
> trouble for it, I'd trap the animal and then head straight for animal
> control and tell them who the animal belonged to and file a complaint on the
> spot.
>
> I think I'd lean towards option (b); that way, the person would get their
> animal back, but they'd also (hopefully) get an earful from animal control
> about how they need to control their animals to prevent future problems.
> That way, the animal doesn't suffer, the property owner protects his/her
> property--which to me is the most important thing in all of this, his/her
> rights as a property owner to keep nuisances out no matter what it takes,
> and lastly (and almost as important) the irresponsible pet owner gets a
> lesson in responsibililty and maybe they'll learn and do better.
>
> LRH

super-b
May 5th 06, 01:50 AM
Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> I agree with this person who said:
>
> > I don't have any problem trapping and turning in rogue cats that **** on
> > my property time and time again. Have done it a number of times. People
> > need to respect their neighbors and when I end up cleaning up cat **** and
> > **** (on doors, furniture, wood pile, etc - rendering these items
> > useless), making sure my son isn't exposed to it, and taking my dog to
> > the vet for worms acquired from other people's cats, that's it. After so
> > many "discussions" where the neighbors basically
> > don't give a **** about you, your family or your property, what other
> > recourse does one have? I have a dog and two cats and my animals (and
> > family) stay on my own property - I expect the same courtesy from my
> > neighbors. If I were able to catch and turn in the dogs that **** on my
> > lawn all the time, I'd do that as well.
> >
>
> I could not agree more with this poster, and to those that say "well an
> innocent cat shouldn't suffer," I agree--but even in regards to that the
> onus should be on the irresponsible owner, not the victimized neighbor who
> is merely trying to protect one's property.
>
> The only change I might would've done compared to this guy is I might have
> trapped the animal and then, rather than taking it to the shelter to be
> euthanized, I'd either (a) inform the neighbor that I had their animal, and
> then give them a suitable dressing down on how to be a good neighbor and
> take care of their own problems, or (b) assuming I didn't get in any legal
> trouble for it, I'd trap the animal and then head straight for animal
> control and tell them who the animal belonged to and file a complaint on the
> spot.
>
> I think I'd lean towards option (b); that way, the person would get their
> animal back, but they'd also (hopefully) get an earful from animal control
> about how they need to control their animals to prevent future problems.
> That way, the animal doesn't suffer, the property owner protects his/her
> property--which to me is the most important thing in all of this, his/her
> rights as a property owner to keep nuisances out no matter what it takes,
> and lastly (and almost as important) the irresponsible pet owner gets a
> lesson in responsibililty and maybe they'll learn and do better.
>
> LRH

super-b
May 5th 06, 01:50 AM
Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> I agree with this person who said:
>
> > I don't have any problem trapping and turning in rogue cats that **** on
> > my property time and time again. Have done it a number of times. People
> > need to respect their neighbors and when I end up cleaning up cat **** and
> > **** (on doors, furniture, wood pile, etc - rendering these items
> > useless), making sure my son isn't exposed to it, and taking my dog to
> > the vet for worms acquired from other people's cats, that's it. After so
> > many "discussions" where the neighbors basically
> > don't give a **** about you, your family or your property, what other
> > recourse does one have? I have a dog and two cats and my animals (and
> > family) stay on my own property - I expect the same courtesy from my
> > neighbors. If I were able to catch and turn in the dogs that **** on my
> > lawn all the time, I'd do that as well.
> >
>
> I could not agree more with this poster, and to those that say "well an
> innocent cat shouldn't suffer," I agree--but even in regards to that the
> onus should be on the irresponsible owner, not the victimized neighbor who
> is merely trying to protect one's property.
>
> The only change I might would've done compared to this guy is I might have
> trapped the animal and then, rather than taking it to the shelter to be
> euthanized, I'd either (a) inform the neighbor that I had their animal, and
> then give them a suitable dressing down on how to be a good neighbor and
> take care of their own problems, or (b) assuming I didn't get in any legal
> trouble for it, I'd trap the animal and then head straight for animal
> control and tell them who the animal belonged to and file a complaint on the
> spot.
>
> I think I'd lean towards option (b); that way, the person would get their
> animal back, but they'd also (hopefully) get an earful from animal control
> about how they need to control their animals to prevent future problems.
> That way, the animal doesn't suffer, the property owner protects his/her
> property--which to me is the most important thing in all of this, his/her
> rights as a property owner to keep nuisances out no matter what it takes,
> and lastly (and almost as important) the irresponsible pet owner gets a
> lesson in responsibililty and maybe they'll learn and do better.
>
> LRH

super-b
May 5th 06, 01:59 AM
I too have a problem with a neighbor who insists on letting his cat
roam free night and day all year. The difference here is that I live in
a condominium and our beloved President is the owner of the cat. Our
rules clearly state, no dogs or cats allowed to roam freely. Yet one
year since they moved in the cat is still roaming freely killing baby
birds, and now my chipmonk that I have fed everyday for a year. I also
had the idea of trapping the cat and taking it to a shelter but I do
not feel it is the cat's fault but the stupid, selfish, selfcentered
owner who doesn't give a damned. If I had someone do to me what the
calous shmuck did to that poor cat he claimed was his I would promise
you he would regret the day he ever lived. However, where is the
Shelter and Animal Control in this matter. It seems to me it is as
much fault of the owner of the cat as it was the b------d who trapped
and had the cat killed. When you have had an experience such as this
not only once but twice previously it is about time someone takes the
shelter to task. They should be obviously awhere of both parties
behavior, fine both of them heavily so as not to incourage the same
type of thing happening again. Then, how about taking the Animal
Control Officer to task for not stepping in with the owners of the
cats. Sounds like a bunch of idiots who go back for more and put the
poor animals at risk every time.

Juice
May 5th 06, 02:38 AM
MaryL wrote:

who are you

Joe Canuck
May 5th 06, 02:43 AM
Juice wrote:
> MaryL wrote:
>
> who are you
>

Your worst nightmare.

Juice
May 5th 06, 03:29 AM
Joe Canuck wrote:
> Juice wrote:
> > MaryL wrote:
> >
> > who are you
> >
>
> Your worst nightmare.

what she don't fart hot

Joe Canuck
May 5th 06, 03:41 AM
Juice wrote:
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>> Juice wrote:
>>> MaryL wrote:
>>>
>>> who are you
>>>
>> Your worst nightmare.
>
> what she don't fart hot
>

Why? That sort of **** turn you on?

stupidassmutherfucker
May 5th 06, 05:09 AM
"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...

> > what she don't fart hot
> >
>
> Why? That sort of **** turn you on?

heel yeah DO IT IN THE BUTT
http:/barryparrish.com/browneyegirl.mp3

shaa laallaaa laaa laa la la la dee da

la tee da

woo! im drugged just thinkin bout it
just for the SMELLOFIT

Joe Canuck
May 5th 06, 05:24 AM
stupidassmuther****er wrote:
> "Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> what she don't fart hot
>>>
>> Why? That sort of **** turn you on?
>
> heel yeah DO IT IN THE BUTT
> http:/barryparrish.com/browneyegirl.mp3
>
> shaa laallaaa laaa laa la la la dee da
>
> la tee da
>
> woo! im drugged just thinkin bout it
> just for the SMELLOFIT
>
>

Fruitcake.

Joe Canuck
May 5th 06, 06:00 AM
Juice wrote:
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>
>> Fruitcake.
>
> lol
> here is my evidence Joe blo
>
> WOO Do it in the BUTT!
>
> Woo!
>
> assholio what's wrongt ****ing cats wont' even come see you!
>
> THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR SMELLING LIKE DICK RETARD
> doo whacka doo whacka dooo whacka...
>
> dumbasssss
>
> PUSSY MAN! PUSSY LIKES PUSSY
>
> ****! lay some sugar on me
> (not you faggot)
>
> you tellin me if you slapped an ass and it talked back you wouldn't tap
> it?
> THEN YOU'RE A FAGGOT STRAIGHT UP AND YOUR A COWARD NOT TO ADMIT IT
>

Get help!