HomeFeral Catsfeeding feral catsHotel owner threatens to sue in defamation feral cat colony managers


Hotel owner threatens to sue in defamation feral cat colony managers — 9 Comments

  1. I answered you–factually–but you were apparently too cowardly to publish my response. Here it is again. Let’s see if you can muster a little integrity and courage this time around.

    PS: I shouldn’t have had to tell you any of this, if you’re a “solicitor” as you claim. If attempting to censor those who dispute with you is how you defend your views, I pity your clients. Once again:

    (Sigh) firstly, if one tries to FORCE a property-owner to allow the feeding and/or outdoor hoarding of these disease-ridden “community” vermin on his/her property, one is in essence attempting to USURP said property. That the owner formerly allowed feeding/outdoor hoarding is irrelevant. He or she has disallowed it NOW, as is their right.

    The outdoor cat-hoarders have no rights in the matter, particularly since they don’t claim to own the cats. Neither do the cats. The owner has come to understand said cats have negatively impacted his/her rights to enjoy and/or profit from his/her property, as in sickening and killing endangered wild felines which served as a draw for their business. The owner demands the cats be removed, as is his/her right.

    The feral cat fanatics have the “right” not to patronize the hotel because they disagree with the hotel owners’ decision (not that most such fanatics could afford to stay at a South African resort hotel in the first place). But if they attempt to HURT the business because it exercised its right to utilize/dispose of its own property as it sees fit by organizing a boycott, the business has the right to take civil action in response, particularly when the fanatics make false claims that the owners are “starving” the cats. The owners are doing no such thing–they have merely demanded the cat-feeders remove the animals if they wish to continue feeding them.

    The “effectiveness” of cat fanatic-engendered social media campaigns is likewise irrelevant. Civil court proceedings can also be “effective”. The feral cat fanatics may learn this to their sorrow. I hope so.

    I expect yet another South African resort hotel, and the cat-feeders which subsidized a colony of feral cats on their property will shortly find themselves in court as respondents to a wrongful death suit because a three year-old child died of rabies after being bitten by one of their “community” vermin, and lying to the family that the cats in that colony had been effectively vaccinated.

    Secondly, your claim there is “no firm evidence” is merely denial on your part. The FIV strain can be identified as coming from Felis catus by the lab testing for it. Easy enough to establish. Had the lab informed the owner the virus was identified as coming from another (wild) feline species, it’s doubtful we’d have heard of this. And all FIV cases diagnosed in North American and European wild felines of which I am aware have been traced back to F. catus.

    Thirdly, as for “attacking” you, my previous post doesn’t even MENTION you.”

    • I’m not too cowardly to publish your comments. I don’t lack integrity. I like publishing comments. But I regret to say that your comments are very tiresome. They bore me. Your arguments in my opinion are poor. You have a rather strange attitude towards cats. I believe that you dislike cats and that you present a biased argument. You use quasi-scientific language to support your arguments but it doesn’t stack up to me. In short, I struggle to publish your comments because I’m bored with you and your comments.

      Accordingly, I would like it if you would stop commenting on this website and bore somebody else.

  2. What was the hotel doing with cheetah cubs ?

    In this case the hand will fall on those who own the cats. It could be easily claimed that the owners of the hotel are the cats owners as most AC laws have a clause somewhere determining that if you feed any domestic cat or dog for x amount of time you now have legal ownership. So do the cats belong to the people who managed the colony with permission on the property or do the cats belong to the hotel in which case starving a domestic pet is abuse. In almost any case the owners can trap and remove the cats but they have no right to deprive them of things necessary to live like food/ water and shelter regardless of who owns them so blocking the feeding while failing to remove them in a humane way could make them guilty of abuse.
    This is the hotels property and it’s their duty to remove the cats since they gave the colony managers what appears to be ample time to do so. Starving them is not an option.
    This is a mishmash of bad behavior from both sides IMHO.
    Again what was the hotel doing with Cheetah cubs ????

  3. And the whole world is seeing your grave concerns that TNR practitioners KILLED cheetah cubs.

    I don’t think that you and everyone like you can sink any lower in the eyes of the world.

    • There is no proof that the feral cats transmitted disease to the cubs. It is claimed by the hotel owner. We don’t know what happened. You should not make a presumption that the feral cats caused the death of these cheetah cubs. And also you should not insult me for simply writing an article about a threat to start a civil action against TNR volunteers. Clearly you are desperate to attack me for any reason which I take as a compliment. If cat haters want to verbally attack me it means that I am doing something right.

  4. What of course is being overlooked here is the presumption of cat-feeders and outdoor cat-hoarders that they can confiscate others’ property for the sake of “their” cats without compensating the owner(s). Even if, as in this case, it causes harm to animals–or people–living on the property.

    I haven’t heard that the cat-feeders have offered to compensate the management for the loss of their cheetahs, in any event.

    Sorry, frantic shrieking and flailing campaigns on social media is not how property changes hands. Normally this is done, presupposing an owner is willing to sell, by offering an amount of cash in terms said property-owner finds acceptable.

    The owners are under NO obligation whatsoever to allow feral animals onto their property because a group of feral cat fanatics demand they do so. If these individuals are all that concerned about the cats’ welfare, they should round them up and provide lodgings for them on their own property.

    But then, I suppose white South Africans as a group have a rather warped sense of “property rights” considering how they usurped “their” country.

    In any event, libel laws do apply to the internet.

    • I have no idea why you are making reference to “confiscating property”. Where does that come from? The hotel owner allowed the volunteers to maintain the cat colony and then they changed their minds. Nobody is confiscating anything from anybody. Also, there is no firm evidence that the cheetah cubs were killed by a disease transmitted from the feral cats. I would like to see evidence on that before commenting on it. Also, the article is simply about the possibility of being sued in defamation. The back story is less important in this instance.

      Campaigns on social media and on the ground are actually very effective. There are many instances of social media campaigns which have had a very strong impact upon businesses and which have forced change. Don’t underestimate online campaigns.But I don’t know why you have referred to “property changes”. What is that about? Nobody is asking anybody to change ownership of property if that is what you mean. You seem to be making things up.

      The trouble is you are so eager to attack me in writing that you lose your common sense and you fail to read what I’m writing accurately.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Note: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified.