HomeAnimal lawsprosecutionsMan Incorrectly Punished For Not Having a Cat Licence?


Man Incorrectly Punished For Not Having a Cat Licence? — 12 Comments

  1. “You feed, you own” is a common response here.
    That’s the way it is.
    Why all of the drama is what my head is saying.
    Someone, estranged wife or husband, please just register the cat. Don’t place the poor cat in the midst of any personal battle.

  2. BArthur, your views and overt hatred toward Michael is despicable, as are your views about ownership of cats. Living near Boston, MA in the USA, we have a very healthy and active TNR program. Thank goodness our own police dept. is very active with our no-kill shelter, formerly the city pound.

    It is certainly my hope that the gentleman in Canada fights this foolish law and gets it abolished. It is just too stupid for words.

    • Agreed on both counts. BA (Bloody Arse**le) Arthur is banned from today. And this law is a fail as indicated by Dan’s firm commitment to not play ball and his willingness to go to jail.

  3. The only thing your own denial of responsibility is getting you is more dead cats. Yeah, you sure do love cats, don’t you. We all see through this song & dance act of yours today. Everyone now cares about your cats just as much as you do — not at all.

    “Words may give weight but actions give luster, and many more people see than weigh.)

  4. This is why people legally kill all stray cats. If the feeder does not want to claim ownership of that cat then the cat has no owner who can sue whomsoever kills that cat. You either want protection of the law for your cat by declaring it yours and bringing it under protection of the laws of humans, or you care so little about that cat that you don’t care if someone else legally kills it. You can’t have it both ways.

    This way if someone is attacked by that cat or contracts any diseases from that cat or that cat destroys any property, the person harmed by that cat can then sue the owner of that cat. Do you want to be responsible for that cat? Or do you want to let others legally kill it. It’s up to you.

    Dog owners enjoy bringing their animals under protection of the law and act as responsible adults when claiming all responsibilities for their animal when their animal breaks any laws.

    Why don’t you want the same legal protection for your cats? Admit it, you don’t care what happens to your cats or what they do to anything else. 5-year-olds who want want want without wanting to be responsible for what they want.

    Most people now realize that you’ll never take responsibility for any of your cats, so they just kill as many cats as they see and there’s nothing you can do about it because you claim those cats aren’t legally yours. You make every excuse in the world why it’s not your fault that cat was roaming free. Read the news.

    • Not owning a cat does not mean you don’t care about the cat. If someone kills a cat you don’t sue the person who did it because that would make it a civil matter and killing a cat is a criminal matter. If you sue a person who kills a cat all you can claim is a paltry £35 or US$35 which is what the law would value a random bred cat at because in general the law do not take into account the emotional context. I have not read the rest of your comment due to time constraints.

      I could go on but I haven’t got the time. Your comments demonstrate a jumbled up way of thinking. It is not clear thinking and there are so many errors in your comments but I haven’t got the time to correct you, or the energy or inclination for that matter.

  5. More insanity, in my opinion. What does the license do? Can the license holder of a feral cat sue if someone shoots or intentionally harms that cat? This business seems like a sticky wicket, besides being irrational.

    I doubt if it offers any protection for the animal, but mostly a means to collect fees and vaccinate actual pets.

    In my area, cats have to get yearly rabies boosters, in order to get their “license”, which is required by law. Since I live in a mobile home, I have to provide proof of yearly license re-issue to management.

    I don’t agree with yearly rabies boosters, and even some vets agree it’s not necessary, but it all “boosts” their income. The vaccine boosts the vet’s income, and the license boosts the city’s income.

    Again, it comes down to money.

    • Why yearly Rabies boosters or is your vet using Purevax 1? Out of curiosity I looked up the Rabies vaccination requirements for California, and they do allow 3-year interval for vaccine licensed for 3 years or one year interval for vaccines licensed for a year.

      By the way, in case you haven’t heard, Purevax has no 2 versions now – one year version and a three year version, but most vets don’t offer the 3-year Purevax yet. Some say it’s too new (2014) and they want to be sure it’s safe (LOL), but others told me it’s very expensive and they don’t know if people would pay as much, yet others simply worry people wouldn’t come for yearly checkups. The clinic I go to only carries one year Purevax.

      If your city has more stringent requirements than the vaccine labeling by manufacturer, I’d question that, maybe write to them and cite California law. I’d do it even if your vet uses one-year Purevax since it’s like that at some point more vets will carry 3-year Purevax e.g. if Merial reduces the price.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.