4 ms·

Should cat owners be held legally liable for the animal cruelty committed by their pets?

dx87 7y ago
I think cats should lose their special pet status if they aren't kept indoors or restricted to an owner's yard. There were a couple of "outdoor cats" in my neighborhood a few years ago, and they'll kill birds in my yard, attack my dogs, leave dead animals on my porch, etc. There was nothing I could do about it though, because cats are considered pets whether or not they actually have an owner. Animal control said all you can do is try to humanely catch them, then take them to a shelter, you can't leave out poison like you can with mice and rats.
dodobirdlord 7y ago
Cat owners should certainly be fined for allowing their cats outdoors on continents where cats are non-native.
ip26 7y ago
It's less about 'cruelty' and more about the desolation which domestic cats have brought upon native bird populations. Unfortunately as long as people feel entitled to let their cats outside, I'm not sure how we ever solve it. It's really kind of sad we are so casually sponsoring such destruction, for so little purpose. The grandparent speaks truly.
Razengan 7y ago
Should meat consumers be held legally liable for the animal cruelty committed by the meat industry? (I realize the effects of cats upon other animals, but your logic..)
- the8472 7y ago
  The meat industry is operated by legally responsible humans. Pets on the other hand are not legal entities, it seems logical that the liability would fall to the owner.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    You didn’t answer why the meat industry shouldn’t be held liable for animal cruelty.
    - the8472 7y ago
      You didn't ask that question. You asked whether consumers (not the meat industry) should be be held liable. But certainly, if the meat industry meets the bar of criminal animal cruelty then I don't see why they shouldn't be held liable. My initial comment was whether existing animal cruelty statutes should be extended to cover pet owners instead of only direct actions by people, assuming they don't already do so.
      - Razengan 7y ago
        You seem to be aware of cats committing animal cruelty but you're not sure if the meat industry meets the bar of animal cruelty? What?
        the8472 7y ago
        No, you asked whether it should be held liable. I answered that it should be held liable, conditional on the legal process determining so. We can't just decide that they should be held liable by mob vote, that's not how justice works. Hence my answer: If A then B. I made no statement wrt. my personal opinion whether A is true or not. But even rolling with the argument for a moment that the meat industry meets the bar and manages to evade the law anyway. That is no justification for letting pets do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, so for the purpose of this conversation that would seem like an unnecessary deflection of responsibility by pet owners and the better answer is to improve both.

dx87 7y ago

I think cats should lose their special pet status if they aren't kept indoors or restricted to an owner's yard. There were a couple of "outdoor cats" in my neighborhood a few years ago, and they'll kill birds in my yard, attack my dogs, leave dead animals on my porch, etc. There was nothing I could do about it though, because cats are considered pets whether or not they actually have an owner. Animal control said all you can do is try to humanely catch them, then take them to a shelter, you can't leave out poison like you can with mice and rats.

dodobirdlord 7y ago

Cat owners should certainly be fined for allowing their cats outdoors on continents where cats are non-native.

ip26 7y ago

It's less about 'cruelty' and more about the desolation which domestic cats have brought upon native bird populations. Unfortunately as long as people feel entitled to let their cats outside, I'm not sure how we ever solve it. It's really kind of sad we are so casually sponsoring such destruction, for so little purpose. The grandparent speaks truly.

Razengan 7y ago

Should meat consumers be held legally liable for the animal cruelty committed by the meat industry? (I realize the effects of cats upon other animals, but your logic..)

the8472 7y ago
The meat industry is operated by legally responsible humans. Pets on the other hand are not legal entities, it seems logical that the liability would fall to the owner.
- Razengan 7y ago
  You didn’t answer why the meat industry shouldn’t be held liable for animal cruelty.
  - the8472 7y ago
    You didn't ask that question. You asked whether consumers (not the meat industry) should be be held liable. But certainly, if the meat industry meets the bar of criminal animal cruelty then I don't see why they shouldn't be held liable. My initial comment was whether existing animal cruelty statutes should be extended to cover pet owners instead of only direct actions by people, assuming they don't already do so.
    - Razengan 7y ago
      You seem to be aware of cats committing animal cruelty but you're not sure if the meat industry meets the bar of animal cruelty? What?
      - the8472 7y ago
        No, you asked whether it should be held liable. I answered that it should be held liable, conditional on the legal process determining so. We can't just decide that they should be held liable by mob vote, that's not how justice works. Hence my answer: If A then B. I made no statement wrt. my personal opinion whether A is true or not. But even rolling with the argument for a moment that the meat industry meets the bar and manages to evade the law anyway. That is no justification for letting pets do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, so for the purpose of this conversation that would seem like an unnecessary deflection of responsibility by pet owners and the better answer is to improve both.