My dogs killed my neighbor's cat

[bsobel]

In the end, your thoughts about how the dog ripped another animal to shreds because the cat trespassed was warranted and is shared amongst of the majority of people on this thread. Now there's a sign to post on the fence, "NO TRESPESSING CATS" Unfortunately, that's the biggest trouble with Americans today. They have this gleeming FVCK YOU atttitude whenever their confronted with something they don't like or didn't want to hear. I'm surprised someone hasn't hit me with a lawsuit for having an opinion. I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority who think the dogs killing the cat was OK own guns too, huh? That's another topic....

Don't forget, as long as it's a bird it's ok...

While everyone can have an opinion on the matter, it turns out yours is wrong both legally and morally. Worse, you show your amazing hyprocracy when you discuss that dogs should be properly trained but it's ok for your cat to kill animals smaller than itself (I don't see you advocating teaching your cat not to hunt).

So post away, it's clear to everyone else how much you've owned yourself already.

p.s. Nice attempt to throw in gun ownership (btw, I don't own a gun). Please make sure you make some vauge nazi reference in your next post.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: bsobel

What? I have never seen anything remotely like what you describe in a cat. I drop a cat from a foot off the ground and it barely moves and doesn't really even care.

While wildly off topic, what the poster was refering to is the strong 'righting' ability a cat has (the ability to rotate to a feet first prepared for impact landing stance). I presume when you dropped your cat from a 'foot' it's feet where already down. Try doing that (well, don't actually try, just imagine) doing that with your cat on it's back from a foot up). The cat needs a certain distance to rotate it's body for landing.

Turns out that falls (back first for example) where the cat doesn't have enough room to right himself are much more dangerous than falls from slightly higher where they can. Of course, there is a limit much higher and even righted there is often signifigant injury.

See why cats land on their feet for more info...

After posting I wondered if he meant upside down. When my cats try to climb a cat tree and for whatever reason lose grip, they do flail a bit. I am always certain they have just killed themselves but they are always ok without any injury. Though sometimes one of them has a minor asthma attack.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Child wanders into the street and gets hit by a car: we need stricter speed limits and speed bumps and speeders should get mandatory prison time and liscense taken away.

Cat wanders into neighbors yard and gets eaten by a dog: tough luck, dumb cat got what it deserved.

Lamest analogy of the day.

Not even remotely parallel... or true, for that matter.

Agreed. Child wanders into the street and gets hit by a car = parent was irresponsible for letting the child wander into the street.

That might be your opinion, but legally the driver of the car is facing vehicular homocide charges.

How about another example.

Neighbor's kid is playing ball, ball goes over the fence into your back yard. The kid comes over to get the ball and you shoot him.

Hey, it's your backyard! The kids parents should have kept him inside if they didn't want him to die, right?

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: Boxxcar

Originally posted by: AMDUALY

Originally posted by: Boxxcar

Wrong, wrong, wrong. His dogs acted appropriately for the situation.

I am just amazed that given even the most clear cut situation, there is always some subset of people who will blame the victim.

Bill

A tool? What a schmuck! I'm not blaming any victim.

I'm not taking sides with either the OP or the sleezebag lady next door. I'm merely making the point that if you own a dog, train it! Train it to obey your commands. I get sick of people who buy animals then never do anything with them. You know who they are... They're the one's who are being jerked down the street with a dislocated shoulder because their dog isn't trained to walk by their side. They're the one's who have one or two dogs in the backyard who constantly bark 24/7 (and then kills anything that might happen to pop in for a visit). They're the ones who buy those extending dog leashes that allow the dog to run 20 feet into everybody's front yard as they are "walking their dog" They're the one's who have no control over their animal.

BTW.. the cat I have now has never brought me any headless prizes. I wouldn't be surprised if she did though. She ate a grasshopper, then puked all over the patio. Does that count? Catching mice and birds are a different story. I am not aware of too many domesticated mice and birds - they are pretty much wild and fair game.

Domesticated dogs and cats are not wild animals, however, left untrained, I suppose they would be rather wild. Dogs don't roam because basically it's against the law and responsible owners don't allow it. When was the last time you saw a cat on a leash? I personally do not understand people who keeps cats indoors all the time and never let them out. I also do not understand people who declaw cats. That's the ultimate of cruelty. The USA seems to be the only nation in the world that practices this. (not confirmed)

Anyway, any further discussion here is futile. You know, you can live in a neighborhood with a bunch of kids ripping up and down the street and all over your property, and if you don't like it, you can always approach the kids parents and have a discussion about maybe talking to the kids about staying off of your property or whatever the case may be. BUT Holy sh*t, how dare anyone ever say something negative about their dog. That is just down-right not acceptable. Funny how the only people who ever get approached by anyone else wanting to lodge a complain against their animal is the same person who can't be bothered to train it. If it was trained in the first place, chances are you wouldn't have neighbors knocking on your door.

You're an idiot. How do you know the dogs don't obey his commands. Just because they killed a cat that trespassed on their property, it means nothing. Yes, we all have time to go train our dogs not to kill cats. :roll: Quit bitching about crap that is irrelevant to the OPs post. Also, quit speaking out of your ass and making yourself look more like an idiot. :thumbsup:

You're absolutely right, I'm entirely wrong and I'm not allowed an opinion. I am completely off topic and pet training is something completely irrelevant to the OP. That's what you want to hear.

In the end, your thoughts about how the dog ripped another animal to shreds because the cat trespassed was warranted and is shared amongst of the majority of people on this thread. Now there's a sign to post on the fence, "NO TRESPESSING CATS" Unfortunately, that's the biggest trouble with Americans today. They have this gleeming FVCK YOU atttitude whenever their confronted with something they don't like or didn't want to hear. I'm surprised someone hasn't hit me with a lawsuit for having an opinion. I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority who think the dogs killing the cat was OK own guns too, huh? That's another topic....[/quote]

Learn to discuss with rational thoughts, without contradicting yourself, and without bringing up unrelated topics to back yourself up. Then MAYBE, someone will listen to you.

 

[bsobel]

Two thoughts:

That might be your opinion, but legally the driver of the car is facing vehicular homocide charges.

Could be facing, really depends on the circumstances which aren't discussed.

Hey, it's your backyard! The kids parents should have kept him inside if they didn't want him to die, right?

Trying to apply human norms to animal behaviours is just stupid.

Bill

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Two thoughts:

Hey, it's your backyard! The kids parents should have kept him inside if they didn't want him to die, right?

Trying to apply human norms to animal behaviours is just stupid.

What animal behaviour? The cat's owner and the child's parents are BOTH HUMANS. Both of them them allowed thier pet/child to enter the "bad" backyard. It's human behavior in both cases, why can't they be compared?

 

[bsobel]

What animal behaviour? The cat's owner and the child's parents are BOTH HUMANS. Both of them them allowed thier pet/child to enter the "bad" backyard. It's human behavior in both cases, why can't they be compared?

Yes, but the outcome in one situation was based on the instincts of a dog (hunt instinct) and the other is based on the decision of a human (is this person a threat, do I need to shoot it). This two outcomes are completely uncompariable, if you really don't see that... Well, I don't really know what to think if you can't see that, but I will admit I'm often surprised by the lengths people go thru to look like an idiot.

 

[compuwiz1]

Even if those dogs would not normally attack a cat, when off their own property, dogs do develope a sense of protectiveness over their owners and their own property. The cat trespassed, and and got nailed. The dog's normal instincts kicked in.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: bsobel

What animal behaviour? The cat's owner and the child's parents are BOTH HUMANS. Both of them them allowed thier pet/child to enter the "bad" backyard. It's human behavior in both cases, why can't they be compared?

Yes, but the outcome in one situation was based on the instincts of a dog (hunt instinct) and the other is based on the decision of a human (is this person a threat, do I need to shoot it). This two outcomes are completely uncompariable, if you really don't see that... Well, I don't really know what to think if you can't see that, but I will admit I'm often surprised by the lengths people go thru to look like an idiot.

Yet it is the decision of a human to keep such deadly animals in the backyard, and apparently also his decision to do so without an effective fence. Honestly makes me wonder how the cat wandered in but wasn't able to get back out in time to save itself, cats move pretty damn fast when they are frightened.

My understanding is that *most* of the responses here fall into this catagory of logic:

the cat was tresspassing, so it's okay that the dogs killed it

No, it doesn't work like that, two wrong don't make a right, not in our society.

Sure, the cat should not be in the guy's yard, that doesn't make it okay for him to have the cat killed. The cat may well have had a nametag before the dogs mauled it to death, a collar could have easily been ripped off. Lots of variables that aren't clear when we only get one side of the story.

 

[bsobel]

Yet it is the decision of a human to keep such deadly animals in the backyard, and apparently also his decision to do so without an effective fence.

Wow, just wow. I guess you one of those people who just likes to argue as you have no facts to back up any of your posts. First off, these arent 'deadly animals', theirs dogs actiing like dogs. I presume you don't have one, or other pets?

Second, cat's jump. The dogs were contained within the yard. It would seem to support the fact that the fence WAS effective (exactly how high do you think the wall should be, not counting building code restrictions, so a cat could not enter the back yard, 12 feet, 15 feet, 20 feet?)

Honestly makes me wonder how the cat wandered in but wasn't able to get back out in time to save itself, cats move pretty damn fast when they are frightened.

And dogs move pretty damm fast when they are hunting, DUH. The stupidity of this statement is astounding.

the cat was tresspassing, so it's okay that the dogs killed it. No, it doesn't work like that, two wrong don't make a right, not in our society.

Let's try this again, you can't apply human norms such as 'society' and 'tresspassing' when discussing animal behaviour. It comes down to an irresponisble cat owner who allowed her cat to go into a dangerous situation. Unfortuantely the cat was killled (no one I've seen is cheering for that outcome). However nothing about the outcome changes the fact that the OP did more than was reasonable or customary to attempt to save the cats life.

Sure, the cat should not be in the guy's yard, that doesn't make it okay for him to have the cat killed. The cat may well have had a nametag before the dogs mauled it to death, a collar could have easily been ripped off. Lots of variables that aren't clear when we only get one side of the story.

What? He 'had the cat killed'? He most certainly did not want this to occur, and its not like he tried to hide the fact. He actually paid his own money to try and do what he could. What else exactly do you expect from him?

I'm of the conclusion you really are clueless (sorry, I don't call alot of members here that, but your cluelessness is quite outstanding in your post).

Bill

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Yet it is the decision of a human to keep such deadly animals in the backyard

Deadly animals? They are a Lab/Shepard mix. They are dogs. Dogs have an instinct to attack small prey. Cats are small prey.

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
and apparently also his decision to do so without an effective fence. Honestly makes me wonder how the cat wandered in but wasn't able to get back out in time to save itself, cats move pretty damn fast when they are frightened.

This is a strange paradox... You assume he doesn't have a fence and thats how the cat wondered in. Or if he did have a fence, what is it supposed to be to conform to your standards? Does it need a roof? Let's assume he didn't have a fence shall we? The cat wonders into the yard, the dogs attack (in his yard), why couldn't the cat get away, there was no fence right?

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Sure, the cat should not be in the guy's yard, that doesn't make it okay for him to have the cat killed.

He didn't sentence the cat to death. The cat chose its own fate when it entered his dogs domain. The vet gave him two choices. Put the cat down, or let it die painfully. I think that is pretty cut and dry there.





EDIT: bsobel, we share the same view obviously.

 

[Schfifty Five]

So far I've seen 3 idiots in this thread: Proletariat , Boxxcar, Chiropteran.

They make illogical claims and even when presented with clear, logical, opinions and facts from many others here, they continue to show their idiocy.

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
So far I've seen 3 idiots in this thread: Proletariat , Boxxcar, Chiropteran.

They make illogical claims and even when presented with clear, logical, opinions and facts from many others here, they continue to show their idiocy or disappear.

fixed.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Yet it is the decision of a human to keep such deadly animals in the backyard, and apparently also his decision to do so without an effective fence.

1-Wow, just wow. I guess you one of those people who just likes to argue as you have no facts to back up any of your posts. First off, these arent 'deadly animals', theirs dogs actiing like dogs. I presume you don't have one, or other pets?

2-Second, cat's jump. The dogs were contained within the yard. It would seem to support the fact that the fence WAS effective (exactly how high do you think the wall should be, not counting building code restrictions, so a cat could not enter the back yard, 12 feet, 15 feet, 20 feet?)

Honestly makes me wonder how the cat wandered in but wasn't able to get back out in time to save itself, cats move pretty damn fast when they are frightened.

3-And dogs move pretty damm fast when they are hunting, DUH. The stupidity of this statement is astounding.

the cat was tresspassing, so it's okay that the dogs killed it. No, it doesn't work like that, two wrong don't make a right, not in our society.

4-Let's try this again, you can't apply human norms such as 'society' and 'tresspassing' when discussing animal behaviour. It comes down to an irresponisble cat owner who allowed her cat to go into a dangerous situation. Unfortuantely the cat was killled (no one I've seen is cheering for that outcome). However nothing about the outcome changes the fact that the OP did more than was reasonable or customary to attempt to save the cats life.

Sure, the cat should not be in the guy's yard, that doesn't make it okay for him to have the cat killed. The cat may well have had a nametag before the dogs mauled it to death, a collar could have easily been ripped off. Lots of variables that aren't clear when we only get one side of the story.

5-What? He 'had the cat killed'? He most certainly did not want this to occur, and its not like he tried to hide the fact. He actually paid his own money to try and do what he could. What else exactly do you expect from him?

6-I'm of the conclusion you really are clueless (sorry, I don't call alot of members here that, but your cluelessness is quite outstanding in your post).

1- Do you just ignore all the posts you don't agree with? To quote another response "They are dogs. Dogs have an instinct to attack small prey. Cats are small prey. " So yes, they are deadly animals as far as cats are concerned. Are you trying to argue that the owner didn't know his dog would kill a cat?

2- Clearly if the cat got in the fence wasn't doing it's job. Cats like to wander around. A proper fence could certainly keep the cat out, the owner just didn't care enough to have one built.

3- Good job at missing my point and focusing on some offhand comment that was neither important to nor the focus of my post.

4- I love how you change it back and forth from animal behavior to human behavior and vice-versa. When the cat wanders in the guys yard, it's human behaviour, because the cat's owner should have kept it locked inside. But when the dogs kill the cat, suddenly it's just animal behavior, the owner has no responsibility at all for his dogs. Which is it, animal or human? Are people responsible for the actions of thier pet, or not? You can't have it both ways.

5- Read the OP. He had the animal put down at the vet's advice. As to WHY the vet advised that, the OP never said. Maybe the cat was beyond help, but I doubt that. More likely the cost to save the cat was more than the fee to have it killed, so he just took the cheap way out.

6- I think and draw my own conclusions. Obviously you take for granted everything the OP wrote as gospel unbiased truth. Don't you think he might be a little tiny bit biased, considering his situation?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Unheard

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
So far I've seen 3 idiots in this thread: Proletariat , Boxxcar, Chiropteran.

They make illogical claims and even when presented with clear, logical, opinions and facts from many others here, they continue to show their idiocy or disappear.

fixed.

I don't really feel the need to defend myself online.

As I said I think most of you are idiots. And you think I'm an idiot.

Good.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Unheard

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
So far I've seen 3 idiots in this thread: Proletariat , Boxxcar, Chiropteran.

They make illogical claims and even when presented with clear, logical, opinions and facts from many others here, they continue to show their idiocy or disappear.

fixed.

Yeah, that must be it. It can't possibly have to do with the fact that I have a life outside the ATOT forums and I'm not going to sit and spam F5 waiting for a reply.

Originally posted by: Unheard
Deadly animals? They are a Lab/Shepard mix. They are dogs. Dogs have an instinct to attack small prey. Cats are small prey.

And your point is? I could make the same argument about guns. Guns can shoot things. Gunshots kill people. That doesn't mean it's okay to use your gun to kill someone, just as it doesn't mean it's okay to allow your dog to kill a animal belonging to another person.

This is a strange paradox... You assume he doesn't have a fence and thats how the cat wondered in. Or if he did have a fence, what is it supposed to be to conform to your standards? Does it need a roof? Let's assume he didn't have a fence shall we? The cat wonders into the yard, the dogs attack (in his yard), why couldn't the cat get away, there was no fence right?

No, I call BS on the whole story. My bet is the OP probably hates cats, saw it wandering around it's ownders house, picked it up and threw it in his backyard with his dogs for his own entertainment. <- not really, but that sounds just as likely as the the OP's post. Cats aren't stupid. Cat's are afraid of dogs. A cat isn't going to jump into a yard with two mean dogs on it's own.

He didn't sentence the cat to death. The cat chose its own fate when it entered his dogs domain. The vet gave him two choices. Put the cat down, or let it die painfully. I think that is pretty cut and dry there.

No, you are reading stuff that wasn't there. For all we know maybe the vet could have saved the cat for $500, but he "recommonded putting the cat down" as a cost saving measure. Given the OP, none of this is known for certain.

 

[bsobel]

1- Do you just ignore all the posts you don't agree with? To quote another response "They are dogs. Dogs have an instinct to attack small prey. Cats are small prey. " So yes, they are deadly animals as far as cats are concerned. Are you trying to argue that the owner didn't know his dog would kill a cat?

2- Clearly if the cat got in the fence wasn't doing it's job. Cats like to wander around. A proper fence could certainly keep the cat out, the owner just didn't care enough to have one built.

3- Good job at missing my point and focusing on some offhand comment that was neither important to nor the focus of my post.

4- I love how you change it back and forth from animal behavior to human behavior and vice-versa. When the cat wanders in the guys yard, it's human behaviour, because the cat's owner should have kept it locked inside. But when the dogs kill the cat, suddenly it's just animal behavior, the owner has no responsibility at all for his dogs. Which is it, animal or human? Are people responsible for the actions of thier pet, or not? You can't have it both ways.

5- Read the OP. He had the animal put down at the vet's advice. As to WHY the vet advised that, the OP never said. Maybe the cat was beyond help, but I doubt that. More likely the cost to save the cat was more than the fee to have it killed, so he just took the cheap way out.

6- I think and draw my own conclusions. Obviously you take for granted everything the OP wrote as gospel unbiased truth. Don't you think he might be a little tiny bit biased, considering his situation?

You really don't know what a tool you sound like do you?

1. You are trying to say that since the dog's killed a cat, they would kill a human or child. Now when called your changing that to 'deadly animals as fat as CATS or concerned'. Stick to a single story.

2. Are you really this stupid? Seriously, the fence did it's job. It kept his dogs from wandering. Exactly what kind of fence do you have that keeps your cat on your property. Since you said you let your cat roam, how does you cat get over the fence? Is your fence defective (by your incredibly broken logic?)

3. No point was missed. You implied the cat should have been able to escape which showed you've never seen dogs hunt.

4. Again, the point was missed and your dense. It was the owners decision to let the cat out (human behaviour). The cats instinct to roam (animal behaviour). The dogs instinct to attack (animal behaviour). The owner does have responsibility for his dogs and at every point in the story did act responsibly. The only person who was not responsible was the nighbor.

5. An injured animal (the OP can atest to the extent of the damage, but I do tend to believe any thoughts you have that it could have been saved are wrong) with no known owner. I don't see what else you expected to occur here.

6. Sounded pretty honest to me, I don't see what he's hiding. If the story changes to his dogs went thru the fence into the neighbors back yard the situation drastically changes. But we've all been commenting on the story as stated, your trying to accuse the OP of lying because of what an idiot your coming off as.

Your wrong, get over it.

 

[bsobel]

No, I call BS on the whole story. My bet is the OP probably hates cats, saw it wandering around it's ownders house, picked it up and threw it in his backyard with his dogs for his own entertainment. <- not really, but that sounds just as likely as the the OP's post. Cats aren't stupid. Cat's are afraid of dogs. A cat isn't going to jump into a yard with two mean dogs on it's own.

There we have it. You're such an idiot and you're so completely wrong on this your new defense is that the OP is lying. Ok now the ball is in your court, prove it.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Boxxcar

Originally posted by: AMDUALY

Originally posted by: Boxxcar

Wrong, wrong, wrong. His dogs acted appropriately for the situation.

I am just amazed that given even the most clear cut situation, there is always some subset of people who will blame the victim.

Bill

A tool? What a schmuck! I'm not blaming any victim.

I'm not taking sides with either the OP or the sleezebag lady next door. I'm merely making the point that if you own a dog, train it! Train it to obey your commands. I get sick of people who buy animals then never do anything with them. You know who they are... They're the one's who are being jerked down the street with a dislocated shoulder because their dog isn't trained to walk by their side. They're the one's who have one or two dogs in the backyard who constantly bark 24/7 (and then kills anything that might happen to pop in for a visit). They're the ones who buy those extending dog leashes that allow the dog to run 20 feet into everybody's front yard as they are "walking their dog" They're the one's who have no control over their animal.

BTW.. the cat I have now has never brought me any headless prizes. I wouldn't be surprised if she did though. She ate a grasshopper, then puked all over the patio. Does that count? Catching mice and birds are a different story. I am not aware of too many domesticated mice and birds - they are pretty much wild and fair game.

Domesticated dogs and cats are not wild animals, however, left untrained, I suppose they would be rather wild. Dogs don't roam because basically it's against the law and responsible owners don't allow it. When was the last time you saw a cat on a leash? I personally do not understand people who keeps cats indoors all the time and never let them out. I also do not understand people who declaw cats. That's the ultimate of cruelty. The USA seems to be the only nation in the world that practices this. (not confirmed)

Anyway, any further discussion here is futile. You know, you can live in a neighborhood with a bunch of kids ripping up and down the street and all over your property, and if you don't like it, you can always approach the kids parents and have a discussion about maybe talking to the kids about staying off of your property or whatever the case may be. BUT Holy sh*t, how dare anyone ever say something negative about their dog. That is just down-right not acceptable. Funny how the only people who ever get approached by anyone else wanting to lodge a complain against their animal is the same person who can't be bothered to train it. If it was trained in the first place, chances are you wouldn't have neighbors knocking on your door.

You're an idiot. How do you know the dogs don't obey his commands. Just because they killed a cat that trespassed on their property, it means nothing. Yes, we all have time to go train our dogs not to kill cats. :roll: Quit bitching about crap that is irrelevant to the OPs post. Also, quit speaking out of your ass and making yourself look more like an idiot. :thumbsup:

You're absolutely right, I'm entirely wrong and I'm not allowed an opinion. I am completely off topic and pet training is something completely irrelevant to the OP. That's what you want to hear.

In the end, your thoughts about how the dog ripped another animal to shreds because the cat trespassed was warranted and is shared amongst of the majority of people on this thread. Now there's a sign to post on the fence, "NO TRESPESSING CATS" Unfortunately, that's the biggest trouble with Americans today. They have this gleeming FVCK YOU atttitude whenever their confronted with something they don't like or didn't want to hear. I'm surprised someone hasn't hit me with a lawsuit for having an opinion. I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority who think the dogs killing the cat was OK own guns too, huh? That's another topic....[/quote]

Dude you are killing me. I own 3 cats. All indoors. They never go outside except maybe 3 times a year in my fenced yard.

Domesticated cats are fine indoors. I do not believe in declawing. It is unneccessary.

My cats are actually scared when they go outdoors. I would never leave ANY animal outside without supervision.

As for dogs. Dogs LOVE to migrate. They expect to migrate. I walk my dog 4 miles a day. Dogs bond with their pack(humans) when walkign with tehm. I have even introduced a backpack into the equation because she loves to work.

My cats are just happy sitting around my hats. My dog would go crazy sitting in the house.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: bsobel
1. You are trying to say that since the dog's killed a cat, they would kill a human or child. Now when called your changing that to 'deadly animals as fat as CATS or concerned'. Stick to a single story.

2. Are you really this stupid? Seriously, the fence did it's job. It kept his dogs from wandering. Exactly what kind of fence do you have that keeps your cat on your property. Since you said you let your cat roam, how does you cat get over the fence? Is your fence defective (by your incredibly broken logic?)

3. No point was missed. You implied the cat should have been able to escape which showed you've never seen dogs hunt.

4. Again, the point was missed and your dense. It was the owners decision to let the cat out (human behaviour). The cats instinct to roam (animal behaviour). The dogs instinct to attack (animal behaviour). The owner does have responsibility for his dogs and at every point in the story did act responsibly. The only person who was not responsible was the nighbor.

5. An injured animal (the OP can atest to the extent of the damage, but I do tend to believe any thoughts you have that it could have been saved are wrong) with no known owner. I don't see what else you expected to occur here.

6. Sounded pretty honest to me, I don't see what he's hiding. If the story changes to his dogs went thru the fence into the neighbors back yard the situation drastically changes. But we've all been commenting on the story as stated, your trying to accuse the OP of lying because of what an idiot your coming off as.

Your wrong, get over it.

1- Are you confusing me for someone else? Please quote where I ever said anything of the sort. The dogs are deadly to cats. That is bad enough. Never did I say they will kill or eat small children. If you think I did, please please find the post and quote me, I would like to see this.

2- It's all a matter of danger. If I had a cat, and my fence was "defective", at worst my cat would maybe rub up against a few friendly looking people for attention. He isn't going to kill anyone's pet. When you have pets that KILL other people pets, your level of responsibility increases.

3- Yes, you did miss the point. It was an offhand comment and it had NOTHING to do with my argument. You are right, I have never seen a dog hunt. That doesn't have anything to do with this situation.

4- You forgot one part: The dogs' owner let them kill another person's pet cat (human behavior). Oh what, the owner had nothing to do with that action? If he takes that argument, it can be shown that he has no control over his animals. You can't just leave dogs outside unattended unless you have them trained to behave. If they do missbehave, it's your responsibility to make things right, as the owner.

5/6- Sorry, I call BS. A lady who spends $2000 on a cat doesn't let it wander around without a collar and nametag. Okay, maybe she does- but I find it unlikely. I also find it unlikely a cat is going to jump into a yard with 2 big dogs. I find it unlikely that a cat who survived the trip to the vet in a box is beyond saving, and I find it unlikely that "crazy cat lady" would have even come to his home and asked if she didn't already supect somethings up. Leaving out facts, making us feel more sympathetic towards him. Sure. Everyone does it. Him calling the cat's owner "crazy" proves he is biased, can't you see that?

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: bsobel

No, I call BS on the whole story. My bet is the OP probably hates cats, saw it wandering around it's ownders house, picked it up and threw it in his backyard with his dogs for his own entertainment. <- not really, but that sounds just as likely as the the OP's post. Cats aren't stupid. Cat's are afraid of dogs. A cat isn't going to jump into a yard with two mean dogs on it's own.

There we have it. You're such an idiot and you're so completely wrong on this your new defense is that the OP is lying. Ok now the ball is in your court, prove it.

I do not have to prove anything. It's the OP who made claims, without proof they are just claims.


I'm a Bill Gates. If you disagree and think I am lying, prove it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Boxxcar

What kind of dog(s) would actually attack and rip to shreds a cat? I'm not talking about working dogs that guard a warehouse or junkyard and are trained to protect commercial property, but the type you find in your everyday friendly neighborhood are not security dogs trained to kill. I do not know of any domesticated dog that would do that unless it was a vicious animal in the first place and then I would start to wonder how long it would be before the dogs attacked a child or an adult.

We have a dog and a cat and they get along together great.

Cats roam - its their nature. Unless you want to keep a cat indoors 24/7, which I think is cruel, they are going to roam the neighborhood. There are many things people can do to try and prevent cats from coming into their yards and soiling the flowerbed, but killing them is not one of them.

Dogs romp around in the backyard, playing with dog toys and bark - it's their nature. A DOMESTICATED DOG DOES NOT ATTACK OTHER ANIMALS AND KILL SIMPLY BECAUSE ITS A DOG. THERE?S SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT IF IT DOES!

This is completely incorrect. Many dogs will naturally kill other animals out of instinct, yet would never hurt a person.

I used to have a Springer Spaniel that was a small, gentle dog. It was so gentle around people and loved to play. It also seemed to love to kill birds and anything else. This isn't any brutal or anything of that nature, it's just instinct. After all, it's technically a hunting dog.

Same with cats- I've never seen a housecat go around attacking humans and trying to eat them, but most housecats will instinctively kill birds and mice seemingly out of pleasure. If they aren't hungry, they'll play with their prey for hours before eating it.

It's just what they do.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Boxxcar
I've seen dogs bark a lot at cats, rabbits, or squirrels, but have never witnessed any mauling due to its instinct to kill. If a dog has this type of temperment that it must kill every little animal it can get its teeth around, then that dog is simply not safe to have around. That is just plain and simple lack of training and the owner is to blame for that. I guess the saying that the dogs bark is bigger than the bite, because most dogs will only just bark, bark, bark, but to actually kill is not right, at least not for a domesticated animal.

You're out of touch with reality.

Both dogs and cats will kill just about any small animal they can catch.

Do an experiment- buy a nice pretty exotic bird from the pet store and put it in the room with the cat. That bird will be dead as soon as you leave the room.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Boxxcar
I am not aware of too many domesticated mice and birds - they are pretty much wild and fair game.

You've got to be kidding me. Have you ever heard of parrots? cockatiels? peacocks?

And you're not aware of domesticated mice?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran


What animal behaviour? The cat's owner and the child's parents are BOTH HUMANS. Both of them them allowed thier pet/child to enter the "bad" backyard. It's human behavior in both cases, why can't they be compared?

Because according to the law, kids are considered people, while pets are considered property.