My cats are killing everything!

[anonymous-user]

bernhund said:

NinjaPower said:

bernhund said:

I think there's a lot of truth in this. But it doesn't make it any easier to accept someone killing your pet, simply because there's no point in ownership if you don't want to get attached to it. Perhaps it's an emotional issue rather than a moral one?

Don't get me wrong, I would be very upset. Naturally people get attached to their pets.

But I would understand and accept the reason for killing the animal if it was trespassing and causing someone else a problem.

I live in a rural area, own guns and shoot living things myself so maybe I have a different view.

If your pet does wrong, it, and you, have to face the consequences. So it's up to the owners to limit the potential if they really don't want that to happen.
My first Bull Terrier, when he was about 9 months old, chased a couple of sheep on the Ashdown Forest. He caught them up and one sheep rolled over, he bounced up and down on it like a trampoline! No damage and no aggression, he just bounced. We dragged him away and I honestly thought he'd have been shot if caught. So, never off the lead again when out of our garden because I know the score.
If a neighbour poisoned my cats, I'd be having words, but ultimately I'd have to take it on the chin.

Exactly.

[Prof Prolapse]

NinjaPower said:

bernhund said:

NinjaPower said:

bernhund said:

I think there's a lot of truth in this. But it doesn't make it any easier to accept someone killing your pet, simply because there's no point in ownership if you don't want to get attached to it. Perhaps it's an emotional issue rather than a moral one?

Don't get me wrong, I would be very upset. Naturally people get attached to their pets.

But I would understand and accept the reason for killing the animal if it was trespassing and causing someone else a problem.

I live in a rural area, own guns and shoot living things myself so maybe I have a different view.

If your pet does wrong, it, and you, have to face the consequences. So it's up to the owners to limit the potential if they really don't want that to happen.
My first Bull Terrier, when he was about 9 months old, chased a couple of sheep on the Ashdown Forest. He caught them up and one sheep rolled over, he bounced up and down on it like a trampoline! No damage and no aggression, he just bounced. We dragged him away and I honestly thought he'd have been shot if caught. So, never off the lead again when out of our garden because I know the score.
If a neighbour poisoned my cats, I'd be having words, but ultimately I'd have to take it on the chin.

Exactly.

I live in a rural area and used to hunt etc. I've killed my fair share of things, but utterly disagree with this.

My pets are part of my family, albeit a more minor role, I find it baffling you can just shrug off their being killed because they inconvenienced someone as OK, or par the course.

Frankly I think you're a pair of pussies for hypothetically letting someone kill your pet. You should be ashamed, not proud of yourselves.

[popeyewhite]

Prof Prolapse said:

My pets are part of my family, albeit a more minor role, I find it baffling you can just shrug off their being killed because they inconvenienced someone as OK, or par the course.

Worrying livestock is more than an 'inconvenience'. Frightening a sheep to death is not only immensely cruel, it costs the farmer money and casts a cloud over the reputation of all dog owners, not only those who are irresponsible. Further the owner of a dog that worries livestock is guilty of an offence under law. There's not really very much more than a 'shrug' that an owner can do if their animal - part of the family or not - is killed lawfully.

[Prof Prolapse]

popeyewhite said:

Prof Prolapse said:

My pets are part of my family, albeit a more minor role, I find it baffling you can just shrug off their being killed because they inconvenienced someone as OK, or par the course.

Worrying livestock is more than an 'inconvenience'. Frightening a sheep to death is not only immensely cruel, it costs the farmer money and casts a cloud over the reputation of all dog owners, not only those who are irresponsible. Further the owner of a dog that worries livestock is guilty of an offence under law. There's not really very much more than a 'shrug' that an owner can do if their animal - part of the family or not - is killed lawfully.

As I said I live in the country. I'm using broad statements here, ultimately he can be reimbursed, and the dogs (and owners) retrained as applicable without the express need to destroy the animal. If the dog can't be controlled then fair warning should be given, but yes, it is permissible to destroy the animal where it cannot be controlled. Same as with any violence from dogs.

This also isn't in the same league as a neighbour casually poisoning your pets, which I thought was obvious where my venom was directed.

[Prof Prolapse]

Actually this is all getting a bit heavy. I'm actually a nice bloke, I just love my pets and I'm very protective of them.

I shouldn't have been so aggressive in tone, it's just an emotive subject.

[bernhund]

Prof Prolapse said:

Actually this is all getting a bit heavy. I'm actually a nice bloke, I just love my pets and I'm very protective of them.

I shouldn't have been so aggressive in tone, it's just an emotive subject.

As I said earlier...it's an emotional issue rather than a moral one. I'd be extremely upset by someone killing my pets!