Court: Cat, Dog Owners Held To Different Standards

SALT LAKE CITY

Wow....what a load.

I totally disagree with this.

Responsible animal stewardship is just that. And if pets of all kinds are going to be welcome in communities, then pet owners have to be prepared to take responsibility for their pets....no matter *what* type they share their homes with.

I personally feel we should all be responsible for all of our pets, no matter what they are. I know there was a case where a neighbors cat would go to another neighbors house and beat up their cat and destroy property. That neighbor was forced to pay for damages and keep the cat in the house. If my cat did stuff like that, I would keep him in the house.

And the fire said to me...on Thu, 08 May 2003 11:49:47 -0400 in article

Actually, I would like to know more details. If a person sees a strange dog walking down the road, they have a little healthy caution before they go touch it. As it should be. If a person sees a strange cat walking down the road, they tend to try to catch it. They don't think it might harm them. As it shouldn't be. Many cats are just as wary, if not more so, than dogs. But people don't think about a scared cat biting them. They do think about a scared dog biting them. In neither case is biting as a result of fear the fault of the animal, IMO. Either people have abused it or it wasn't socialized or it was just plain scared witless.

This article didn't state the situation. If someone goes to grab my cat when she doesn't want to be grabbed, and I warn them, and they do it anyway - they should be prepared to get nailed. Many animal bites are the fault of the human who got bit. Certainly not all by any means, but I think people are quick to judge.

What do you think?

I totally agree with the judge. A cat is never going to run after a person and attack (unless it has rabies and even so, the animal would tend to hide in a dark place). A dog might. If the person went up to the cat and touched it or tried to pick it up, then the person is the only one responsible for the outcome. Afterall, if the person hadn't bothered the cat, she wouldn't have been bitten.

Kaeli-

I agree. I've warned people about one of my cats and they didn't pay attention...so they got nailed. I was responsible and I did warn the human and they ignored me.

But if you warned people to stay away from your d*g and it bit somebody you'd be held responsible. If a little kid drowns in your goldfish pond you're held responsible (usually) if your pet parakeet gets out and blinds somebody while attacking them I'd bet you'd be held responsible

And the fire said to me...on Fri, 9 May 2003 09:51:28 -0400 in article

I don't think that's right in any of those cases. I think people are not taking a little personal responsibility. They sue over hot coffee, FCOL. If my animal, which should be under my control at all times and not roaming about at will, bites someone after I've warned them, if their fault. The kid's parents should have been watching him. Dogs and cats belong on leashes or in their own yard. If someone comes up to a dog/cat, is warned the dog/cat is not nice, and keeps coming anyway, that's their fault. Now, if an owner allows their not-nice dog or cat to go roaming about, that's a whole 'nother story. But if my dog is in my yard, no one is supposed to be coming in there. That's my property.

Just my opinion.

I agree with my entire being. A cat that goes outside should be supervised on a leash or on its owners property. Just like dogs.

And the fire said to me...on 8 May 2003 20:28:46 -0700 in article

said:

Have you ever watched Planet's Funniest Animals? They always show cats divebombing people...LOL But they're playing.

See, from that little story, we don't even know if they cat was just

Even in dogs, both of these scenarios could possibly be considered a provoked bite anyway, so their strength as arguments here is limited, IMO.

With that said, however, if it had been a dog, the owner would have placed themselves *in front of* the person who wasn't listening. The difference being that a dog with a bite history is a lot closer to getting euthanized. Living with that reality makes it vital to protect your pet from having to defend itself. I don't know if its that lack of having to take responsibility that creates less proactive measures taken by cat owners. But I disagree that it should be built into the system. I don't find it any more acceptable for my cats to put their teeth on someone than for my 85 pound dog to. And I do whatever it takes to make sure they were never forced to. And the result? Maybe its coincidence, but I have the only cats I know that haven't so much as put a single tooth on human skin since they were under a year old. Not once. It is totally Not Allowed....and its *my* responsibility to keep it that way, not theirs and not my visitors'.

People spend hours upon hours teaching dogs not to bite or so much as put their teeth on human skin. As a cat and dog owner who knows equal numbers of each, I have yet to meet anyone who puts that kind of teaching time into their cats on that topic.

I also have to take exception to the judge's statement that 'But as the judge sees it, reaching out to a cat doesn't present the same kind of foreseeable harm that would exist in the case of a strange dog'. this goes against the thinking of almost every shelter worker (and every shelter) I have worked with. As a rule, cat bites are *far* more dangerous than dog bites.

If you had a dog that bit when grabbed by strangers, would you settle for merely telling your friends and then letting nature take its course? I know that I would have a real problem with the lesson my dog would be learning from that experience (i.e. the only way to make them stop coming at you is to go ahead and bite.), and I don't understand why its ok for a cat to receive that message either.

Before coffee....not much