Saturday, June 9, 2012

Laws of Nature

The following comment was left by “Sweetie Pie” and is definitely food for thought.  Here is part of the comment:

“I just got an email from a close friend. Her cat was lazing around in its own back yard (which this friend owns). The neighbors have a couple of terriers (not mutants, oops, I mean pits), one of which is always raging at the cat. My friend has been extremely accommodating. She actually helped construct a fence that all hoped would keep this other woman's dogs on their own property.

Nope. The terrier SOMEHOW got around the fence and attacked the cat. The cat defended himself. Apparently adequately, because at this moment the terrier (not the cat) is at the vet's getting wounds treated.

Comes the Entitlement frigging shite: The terrier's owner thinks the cat owner -- whose cat was attacked on it's own property by a trespassing dog -- should pay at least half (preferably all) the vet bills.”

I have many thoughts on this issue.

First, on the cat owner:  The cat owner likewise needs to restrict their behavior.  In my opinion, they behaved inappropriately in the following ways:
1)       In a typical suburban or urban setting, cats should be indoor only or walked on a leash.  The world is very dangerous to a house-cat and your cat may be a danger or a hazard to others.  You can’t count on your cat to stay on your land.  These issues include but are not limited to:
a.       People who hate cats.
b.      Cars.
c.       Vicious at large dogs.
d.      Wild animals.
e.      Various environmental hazards, diseases, etc…
f.        Your cat may be a danger to wildlife.
g.       Your cat may deposit urine and feces on other’s property (see (a).
2)      In my honest opinion, your friend should NOT have accommodated the malicious dog owner.  All that does is feed and reinforce their sense of entitlement.  Now, they truly believe that everyone else exists to suit them.  Building that fence was a mistake.   Your friend needs to stop accommodating the dog owner’s bad behavior.  It’s like paying rapists not to rape people.  FAIL.  we put them in jail.  Period!

Second, on the dog owner:  This is where I am in 200% agreement.  The dog owner can suck eggs on this one.  Dog owners who turn their pets loose on others properties are criminals, at large dogs are dangerous and destructive varmints, and both dog owner and dog deserve everything that happens to them in these instances.  Rather than demand payment for vet bills, Fido's owner should be thankful that the cat owner in question did not simply shoot the dog dead.   I am glad the cat tore up the dog and I hope the vet care is REALLY expensive.  GOOD KITTY.

I have another interesting anecdote with the same drift.  About 18 months ago, I had a neighbor ring my doorbell.  It wasn’t someone I knew, lived maybe a block away.  It was a woman in my age group, clearly distraught.  She asks me “did you run over my dog?”.  Apparently, she had let her pug puppy run in the road and it got squashed by a motor vehicle.  Note that my county has a LEASH LAW (unenforced).  I didn’t think I had done so, but figure that a 5000 lb truck vs. a 5 lb dog would hardly be a bump, particularly if it ran under the rear wheels.  I told her that I did not believe so, did the vehicle look like one of mine?  She couldn’t remember(!).  In any case, she was going door to door trying to find the “culprit”.

I didn’t lecture her, but the leash law states that the OWNER is liable for ANYTHING that involves their dog if they let it off leash.  And, I mean ANYTHING:  The other party cannot be sued or charged AND the dog owner is strictly liable for any damages.   Therefore, if you let your dog run in the road and it causes an accident, YOU are 100% liable for the result.  She had no one to blame but herself.   If the incident in question had resulted in damage to the automobile SHE would have been liable for that!  I tell you, the entitlement mentality of these people is truly astonishing. 

What goes around comes around, and irresponsible behavior has real world consequences regardless of your social status.   Do they really think that a truck is going to stop on a dime when they turn their dog loose in the road?  Do they really think that if their dog attacks a human or other animal that it’s going to passively allow that attack to play out?  Let me tell you something, basic physics, cats, etc… REALLY do not give a damn about the entitlement status of dog owners!

This is why I LOVE it when these people get their proverbial asses handed to them.  They might have a lock on the legal system (for now) but they CANNOT repeal the laws of physics or nature!



  1. I am glad I do not live in RI. While it is bad in my home state, it is not anywhere near THAT bad.

    I did speak to one of my AC officers regarding a near hit and run on another dog. I was assured that, if the dog was off leash, the owner was fully liable.

    As the Craven commenter noted, you do NOT want to "give assistance" to a wounded animal. That would be a good way to get injured or killed.

    What was the follow up on the RI incident: Did the driver successfully sue the dog owner? Was the driver cited?

  2. i don't know the final outcome of this case. my hope is the prosecutor and/or judge had more common sense than the idiots who passed this law or Detective Lt. Eugene Jalette.

  3. I'm with you on the cats running loose, Animal Uncontrol. Here in Tucson, we have a huge feral cat population. We also have quite the population of animal rights wackos who think that the solution is TNR, Trap, Neuter, and Release.

    Well, epic fail on that one. Releasing the cats back into neighborhoods just means more destruction of the native bird population. Not to mention having your garden crapped in and your house sprayed.

  4. AU, your anecdote shows (besides everything else) that all these entitled dog owners aren't the best thing that happened to dogs either. It would be good for dogs if your campaign took off (to make owning back into a privilege).

    Quiet, there's in fact a good reason for re-releasing the neutered feral cats. It's turned out to be the best way to control the population. These cat populations tend to stabilize at some number that survives given available resources. If these orgs don't return the now infertile cats, then unneutered cats come in to replace them. This results in the birth of lots more cats, which then die (since the resources insist on a certain number); or they establish new populations elsewhere. So returning the infertile cats may not reduce the population instantly, but not returning them wouldn't either, and it does keep population explosions from occurring.

    1. The re-releasing of feral cats has proven to be a colossal failure. Feral cats continue to wreak havoc on native bird populations all over the country.

      To the point where the economic loss from feral cat predation on birds in the United States has been estimated at $17 billion per year. Reference:

  5. Here in Tucson, we're about to turn the tables on the pit nutters in a big way. Reference:

  6. YQN: The walk should be interesting. I have a big concern about security at the event. Pit Nutters get lathered up pretty easily, and I forecast a rather nasty "counter protest" that could turn violent. At a minimum, I'm sure they will try to intimidate the victim advocates into leaving or staying home.

    1. If the pit nutters come out, cool. We'll take lots of pictures of them.

      Might be useful in sharing with law enforcement, because we all know that they're not the most upstanding people.

      If I were the Tucson police, I'd be checking the nutters carefully. Who knows, they might be able to pop a few on outstanding warrants, failure to appear in court, parole violations, that sort of thing.