Born Hunter 17,610 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 ha! I've killed enough stuff wi my rifle, with photo's on my facebook account to prove it. some of it not even humanely as well, long drawn out deaths that aren't pretty to watch sometimes im no hippiei love killing stuffso blast away You really dont belong in the hunting world pal. No Shooting/hunting man I know actually enjoys killing, they enjoy hunting and everything that goes with it. If ya so keen on just killing, go buy some mice and drown em to get ya jollys because no one here wants shit like what you have just typed being quoted and tarred on the rest of us! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
darren watson 14 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 http://www.martleyelectronics.co.uk/deterrents-repellers/54-pest-stop-outdoor-pest-repeller.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
darren watson 14 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) ha! I've killed enough stuff wi my rifle, with photo's on my facebook account to prove it. some of it not even humanely as well, long drawn out deaths that aren't pretty to watch sometimes im no hippiei love killing stuffso blast away You really dont belong in the hunting world pal. No Shooting/hunting man I know actually enjoys killing, they enjoy hunting and everything that goes with it. If ya so keen on just killing, go buy some mice and drown em to get ya jollys because no one here wants shit like what you have just typed being quoted and tarred on the rest of us! to be honest mate im only rising to the rest of the idiots that've posted on here. i just felt i'd have to stoop to their level to get my point into their stubborn heads and if you read the rest of the thread, all the tarring was done waaay before i piped up. edited to say, and if you read the rest of my posts on this site, you'll realise im not at all the dickhead iv made out i am in that post. i get just as pi**ed as you when people bring unwanted attention/bad vibes towards shooters (like he idiots further down this post for instance) Edited January 13, 2011 by darren watson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
darren watson 14 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 yeah, i'd rather view as a guest as well!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,610 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 The control of cats is a sensitive subject amongst countrymen. It brings out all the macho twats as well as the 'almost an anti but I like shooting' types as well as the keepers, cat owners and dogmen. Theres certainly room for healthy debate on this topic and I have given my personal opinion early on in the thread. But ffs dont drop your ethics or act like a child just to piss off the 'opposition'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
darren watson 14 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 The control of cats is a sensitive subject amongst countrymen. It brings out all the macho twats as well as the 'almost an anti but I like shooting' types as well as the keepers, cat owners and dogmen. Theres certainly room for healthy debate on this topic and I have given my personal opinion early on in the thread. But ffs dont drop your ethics or act like a child just to piss off the 'opposition'. fair point. im kinda wishing i'd never got involved! at least i never mentioned that i'm a cat lover with 3 of them between me and our lass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
darren watson 14 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 anyways im off, and im never looking at this thread again! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
R. Docks 154 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 craigboy this is the problem cat owners dont give a fck they chuck the cat out to cause havoc with the local bird population shit everywhere etc etc and they cant be held resposnsible for it. CATS ARE CLASSED AS PROPERTY UNDER ENGLISH LAW AND AS SUCH THE OWNER HAS A DUTY OF CARE SO IF THE CAT IS WANDERING FREE AROUND THE FIELDS ETC IT CAN BE CLASSED AS FERAL AND UNDER ENGLISH LAW YOU HAVE A DUTY TO ERADICATE FRERAL CATS AS THEY ARE VERMIN CATS ONLY HAVE RIGHTS IN LAW ON THERE PROPERTY Utter RUBBISH! Now don't get me wrong; I'm no cat fan and think the law is stupid..................... BUT: Cats are property, and the owners cannot be held liable for the actions of their property in law. FACT. A feral cat is one which is no longer owned by anyone (not just wandering away from it's owners property), and before it is humanely destroyed, you MUST be able to prove that it is genuinely feral. You cannot do that down the barrel of a gun, you have to catch the animal, scan it for microchips or other identification, and record that you have done so. If you do not carry out all 'reasonable measures' to ensure that the animal is feral, then you WILL be liable in law for criminal damage and theft. What are 'reasonable measures'? Anything the Judge thinks. A few idiots posting on this thread need to carefully consider what they've written. The internet is not as anonymous as some people think, and to own up to illegal activities (like cat killing) on here is stupid. Tracing the identity of posters is not very difficult. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
"Earth!" 503 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 craigboy this is the problem cat owners dont give a fck they chuck the cat out to cause havoc with the local bird population shit everywhere etc etc and they cant be held resposnsible for it. CATS ARE CLASSED AS PROPERTY UNDER ENGLISH LAW AND AS SUCH THE OWNER HAS A DUTY OF CARE SO IF THE CAT IS WANDERING FREE AROUND THE FIELDS ETC IT CAN BE CLASSED AS FERAL AND UNDER ENGLISH LAW YOU HAVE A DUTY TO ERADICATE FRERAL CATS AS THEY ARE VERMIN CATS ONLY HAVE RIGHTS IN LAW ON THERE PROPERTY Utter RUBBISH! Now don't get me wrong; I'm no cat fan and think the law is stupid..................... BUT: Cats are property, and the owners cannot be held liable for the actions of their property in law. FACT. A feral cat is one which is no longer owned by anyone (not just wandering away from it's owners property), and before it is humanely destroyed, you MUST be able to prove that it is genuinely feral. You cannot do that down the barrel of a gun, you have to catch the animal, scan it for microchips or other identification, and record that you have done so. If you do not carry out all 'reasonable measures' to ensure that the animal is feral, then you WILL be liable in law for criminal damage and theft. What are 'reasonable measures'? Anything the Judge thinks. A few idiots posting on this thread need to carefully consider what they've written. The internet is not as anonymous as some people think, and to own up to illegal activities (like cat killing) on here is stupid. Tracing the identity of posters is not very difficult. An estate i do the terrier work on is over run with ferals,i get through alot of them and if you think im going to pop down the veterinary surgery to get them scanned . the nearest town is a mile away. cats are cruel sadistic killers which when feral MUST be controlled. Topper,if anyone on this forum,im sure will will be more knowledgable on this matter EVEN if he does work poodles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOPPER 1,809 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 if the cat is not on its own property it has NO RIGHTS IN LAW end off and this has been test in court , now iam not saying you go out and shoot every murdering moggy but if its a problem then you can sort it with NO repercussions Quote Link to post Share on other sites
"Earth!" 503 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 if the cat is not on its own property it has NO RIGHTS IN LAW end off and this has been test in court , now iam not saying you go out and shoot every murdering moggy but if its a problem then you can sort it with NO repercussions Right,i have moved into a built up area,the garden is fenced and secure. Should pussy enter my garden,the terriers WILL nail it,how would i stand in a court of law? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
R. Docks 154 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 if the cat is not on its own property it has NO RIGHTS IN LAW end off and this has been test in court , now iam not saying you go out and shoot every murdering moggy but if its a problem then you can sort it with NO repercussions You say that it has been proven in court, can you post a link or reference to qualify that statement please? I'm afraid as previously stated, you are wrong. Cats are classified as property, and their owners are not legally responsible for their actions. As for checking each cat you think is feral; it is not a legal requirement, but is 'best practice' and has been used in court. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
"Earth!" 503 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 if the cat is not on its own property it has NO RIGHTS IN LAW end off and this has been test in court , now iam not saying you go out and shoot every murdering moggy but if its a problem then you can sort it with NO repercussions You say that it has been proven in court, can you post a link or reference to qualify that statement please? I'm afraid as previously stated, you are wrong. Cats are classified as property, and their owners are not legally responsible for their actions. As for checking each cat you think is feral; it is not a legal requirement, but is 'best practice' and has been used in court. Please note,i am NOTE trying to start an argument,purely putting what others WILL be thinking> As a terrier owner,does that also mean i am NOT legally responsible for my terriers actions 'SHOULD' they get free from my garden?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
R. Docks 154 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Some interesting facts here (link) . Domesticated animals such as cats amount to "property". As with any other kind of property, you cannot destroy other people's property at will. There are also additional protections for certain animals (owned or wild), including cats, which is that you cannot treat them inhumanely. The effect of these two laws is that cats have virtual impunity as long as their behaviour and presence is "reasonable" and consistent with that expected of normal cats. (italics added by me to highlight the point) Another legal quote: CATS AND TRESPASS The question of trespass by cats frequently arose and was often a matter for dispute between neighbours. It had been the common belief that the cat could not be classified under the same jurisdiction as other pets which are judged to be trespassing when they enter land or premises where they have no authority to be; prosecution cases have been cited to uphold this view. An opposing view was taken by a judge dealing with a case, brought under the 1936 Public Health Act, against the owner of a cat which, it was said, had trespassed and caused damage. Judgement was given against the owner of the cat with costs. Under the Public Health Act 1936, there had been provision for prosecutions to be brought when, in the view of the Local Authority, there was a "statutory nuisance" caused by "any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance". It was very unlikely that occasional straying by a cat could be described as being a nuisance, but repeated straying, or straying by several cats, had sometimes resulted in convictions. The local authority could also draw up by-laws preventing the keeping of animals where it would be prejudicial to health. The situation regarding trespass was clarified in 1971 and cats once more became "free spirits" under the law. Cats were excluded from the definitions of "livestock" and of "cattle" under the Animals Act 1971, "they cannot be held guilty of trespass under civil law and, therefore, their owners or keepers cannot be liable for any damage done". The Animals Act, 1971 had caused anxiety among cat owners. It concerned liability for damage caused by domestic animals straying on the highway - showing that the motorcar was well and truly a fact of modern life. To bring a case, a party had to prove that the owner had negligently allowed their pet to stray and this probably could not be proved in the case of cats - it was (and still is) accepted that cats are wanderers by nature. Aviary owners knew that it was up to them to secure their birds from marauding cats. Gardeners had (and still have) no redress when a cat dug up their plants. These people could be convicted of cruelty if in their rage they injured or killed their neighbour’s cat. In very recent times a man was convicted for killing scores of neighbours' cats with cyanide-laced fish after the cats entered his garden. In 2003, a man was convicted of electrocuting his neighbour's 10 month old cat using a home made electric fence over his flower beds (in this case, the cat's owner, a young girl, found her pet with its mouth still smoking where it had been caught under the electric wire and tried to bit its way out). A former colleague of mine, knowing that nothing could be proved against him, even boasted of kidnapping neighbours' cats and abandoning them miles from home after they annoyed his birds. Unfortunately, the penalties are rarely severe enough to act as a deterrent and many people are seeking to make cat-owners more responsible for their cats' trespass. From "Daily Mail" 8th October, 1946: It was held by Judge Crosthwaite at Liverpool County Court that the cat has a right to prowl. J. E. Withers tenant of a ground floor flat in St. George’s Road, Hightown, Liverpool, sought an injunction against her tenant of the flat above, to keep the cat under control and claimed damages. For Mrs. C.’s cat, it was said, got into Mrs. W. ‘s, fiat ate mincepies and fish, got on to a bed, and scratched the bedpost. For the plaintiff it was contended that a cat was in the same category as a dog, and it was the owner’s duty to keep it under control. For Mrs. C. it was argued that an owner was not liable for a cat’s actions "when trespassing and following its natural propensities." Judgement was given for Mrs. C. with costs. From "The Smallholder": A Trespassing Cat. The injury to the poultry has been caused by the intrusion of a neighbour’s cat, Mrs. G. C. M. (2441 Warwick). For such any injury and however caused, the owner of the cat is not liable. There is no provision requiring that the owner of the cat should take steps to prevent the recurrence of this happening. A cat is an animal which has a propensity to roam and to do damage of this kind. The owner of the poultry is obliged to keep his poultry so that cats cannot have access to them. The owner of the cat need do nothing in the matter and he may ignore any claims made for any loss caused by his cat or cats. Also see here (link) for the opinion of a local authority. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
R. Docks 154 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Please note,i am NOTE trying to start an argument,purely putting what others WILL be thinking> As a terrier owner,does that also mean i am NOT legally responsible for my terriers actions 'SHOULD' they get free from my garden?? No. Dogs have a different legal status to cats. The owners of dogs are liable for the actions of their animals. Look on the bright side; you do not have to stop or report a road traffic accident involving a cat - unlike dogs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.