you might sat what is the point?

[Desley (booktigger)]

What a sad story, and how sad for that poor lady who was laughed at by the council, they deserve sacking!!

[fuzziesdad]

having looked at most of the new animal welfare law it seems that all animals will be treated the same in law and if the law is taken as it reads then you might only have to look at any animal the wrong way and your feet won't touch(just the way I would want it,my only concern is the rspca policing it with their draconian policies) but thats another story for another day.

For any council to be so uncaring is unspeakable.
roger.
 

[Déborah]

Am I right in thinking that when you're driving, you're supposed to swerve to avoid a dog but not a cat? I remember reading that when you're taking your driving test, you're expected to swerve for a dog but if you swerve for a cat you would be failed? Sounds incredible but I remember several people mentionning it.

[Tiggy's Mum]

Our laws are very ambiguous

Exactly Ela, that was what I was trying to say - see first post!

I don't think it's as simple as a dog being classed as property and a cat not.  It's more down to what parts of the law and acts cover certain situations

[Ela]

why cats aren't classed as property.

Our laws are very ambiguous, under the 1948 National assistance act pets including cats are classed as property and therefore the Social Services have a responsibility to care for them until the owner can or the cats are taken into care.

[Tiggy's Mum]

Yes I'm sure about this, the subject came up at work around 6 months ago, a lady was reporting that her cat had been shot (and sadly killed) with an air rifle.  I created the crime report and it actually went to our Force Solicitors who deemed that you could only cause criminal damage to an animal in captivity ie) a bird in an aviary or a fish in a tank.  The Criminal Damage Act and the Protection of Animals Act are two entirely different laws, cats are cover under the Potection of Animals act but not the Criminal Damage Act   

You are right in saying that an offender can definitely be prosecuted in a criminal court and receive a prison sentence as a punishment it's just that they can't cause criminal damage to cat, this wouldn't normally be of any importance it's just that Sam was asking why cats aren't classed as property.  Under Sect 1 of the Protection of Animals act the maximum punishment is 6 months imprisonment, so if a person were found guilty of say, causing unnecessary suffering to an animal within that act (like you said in your previous post for torturing cats) that is what they would be guilty of and not criminal damage to that animal.  Both the Police and the RSPCA have the powers to prosecute but most of the time the RSPCA take on the case as they obviously are much more specialized in the subject.

[Hippykitty]

Are you sure that there is no criminal liability for damaging a cat? That was what I questioned in my original post: cats are covered by anti-cruelty legislation just like any other pet. I'll do a search concerning this, but I'm sure that being cruel to, or mistreating a cat is subject to the same law as cruelty to any other domestic pet. People have been put in prison for six months - not long enough - for causing deliberate injury to cats. A few years ago a guy in Evesham was given this max sentence for torturing cats. Personally, I'd have taken an ancient Egyptian approach!

[Tiggy's Mum]

Hippykitty

I'm not talking about a cat being held accountable in law for damage caused as you are right they cannot be, I'm talking about cats not being covered under the Criminal Damage Act ie) You cannot be guilty of causing criminal damage to a cat, this is only relevant as we were talking about why a cat is not classed as property.  Criminal Damage is recklessly damaging something not belonging to yourself ie) property. 

[Hippykitty]

Helen, I'm not sure that you're correct about the law in this case. Cats are free-roaming, meaning that they have the right to roam WITHOUT the responsibility for any damage caused BY them; nevertheless, they still have 'owners' and are protected by anti-cruelty legislation.
Personally, I believe that the callously careless attitude towards cats which is demonstrated by the lack of care in scanning them when found dead from rta's is of sexist origin.
Cats are usually considered to be a 'pretty, decorative, female plaything' - dating back to Victorian days; whereas dogs are often seen by men (who still make laws and have the power in authority) as useful, working animals. This is, of course, wrong. Without cats, cities would be overrun with mice.
It also strikes me that those who callously regard this poor bodies as 'just a cat' forget that behind each cat is someone, or many people, who love him and are greiving. Cats give so much unconditional love that someone, somewhere, is breaking their heart over the soul who once inhabited those remains. Both cat and owner should be afforded respect.

[Tiggy's Mum]

Sam

I don't think it's as simple as a dog being classed as property and a cat not.  It's more down to what parts of the law and acts cover certain situations eg) You have to report a collision with a dog as dogs are covered by the Road Traffic Act but cats are not.  A cat could still be covered under the Theft Act so could be reported as 'stolen' but I suspect you would have a hard time reporting a missing cat stolen as cats are considered free-roaming. You would need reasonable proof that it had been stolen (and not just disappeared), you would also need to prove ownership if anything got as far as court which could be tricky in itself.  Another thing is that you can't cause criminal damage to a cat wheras you can to a confined creature such as a bird in an aviary or a fish in a tank, the cat would be protected by the Protection of Animals Act instead, as it is deemed a domestic animal.

I completely agree though, I think cats should be covered by the RTA and treated exactly the same as dogs.

[Sam (Fussy_Furball)]

The Dog licence was abolished in 1986.

[Tan]

Very good point Sam. I thought you still needed a licence for dogs and therefore they were property but if not why the difference!!!

[Sam (Fussy_Furball)]

Helen you may be able to answer this question why is it that Dogs are considered "property" and therefore have to be reported to the Police and are scanned by the council when cats aren't.  I understand that in the old days when you had to have a licence for a dog it made sense but since the dog licence no longer exists I don't understand how ther can be any difference between cats and dogs.

[Ela]

maybe the rspca or cats protection might have a word with this ignorant council

Richard Woodward quoted in the letter is the manager of the RSPCA shelter that covers Clowne. The Cats Protection that that is in the Bolsover District Council area is Ashfield & Amber Valley.

[sonya]

Both of those stories are absolutely shocking, why is it that a lot of councils have a policy of checking stray dogs but not stray cats???  Surely they cannot assume that a cat is worth any less than a dog in its owners eyes, and it may well give the wrong message that chipping is not worth it. I would never have know what happened to my Toffee if she hadnt been chipped, and all my other cats are chipped as well.

As for the council worker who laughed at the poor lady enquiring about her cat, that is absolutely disgraceful and I hope that whoever it was can be identified and reprimanded, no wonder people complain so much about levels of customer service and that is just plain cruel 

[saffron]

if this helps anybody try contacting Sue at www.mymoggy where this situation arose before & I'm not sure how Sue did it but the council involved have taken on board her words & are making some sort of register & were going to get a scanner

[Tiggy's Mum]

These stories so distress me: the thought that someone was laughed at because they were upset and crying adds insult to injury and just makes my blood boil. Do write to the council, Helen - I expect you told the poor lady to do the same.

Yes, I have told her to make a complaint about the way she was treated. I'm not sure if she will or not as obviously at the moment that is the last of her worries, she was devastated about her cat going missing and the possibility that he could already be dead but she will never find out as the council 'don't bother' keeping records.  Have emailed the council, will let you know what their response is...

[Christine (Blip)]

These stories so distress me: the thought that someone was laughed at because they were upset and crying adds insult to injury and just makes my blood boil. Do write to the council, Helen - I expect you told the poor lady to do the same.

[Yvonne]

I have just had two of my cats microchipped in the hope that it is a safety net against anything awful happening to them, or getting lost etc.

If you write to the Council Helen - please post their reply on here, it will be really interesting.  I am so sorry for that poor lady being laughed at like that, there is no need to treat people like that.

[Tiggy's Mum]

I work at the Police station and only yesterday took a call from a lady wanting to report her cat missing, it is not something we normally do but we have a miscellaneous register so I took a report for her anyway. 

I gave her all the numbers for the local Cats Protection, RSPCA etc and advised her to ring the council in case 'the worst had happened'.  She told me that she already had and that whoever she spoke to laughed at her beacuase she was crying and told her that they do not even keep a log of dead animals, let alone scan them    Needless to say I will be writing a letter to that department urging them to scan and record any dead animals and perhaps address the 'training needs' of whoever spoke to this poor lady.

[fuzziesdad]

some people just have to be educated
http://www.chesterfieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID
=728&ArticleID=1964240
     *Heartbroken owner raps council's policy on
disposal of dead cats*

Anguish: Rebecca Gosling with a poster looking for her lost microchiped pet
A grieving cat-owner has accused a council of treating animals as
"pieces of rubbish" after being told dead cats are disposed of without
being scanned for identification.
Rebecca Gosling of Creswell Road, Clowne, contacted Bolsover District
Council after her beloved two-year-old pet Kovu went missing.
She was told a dead cat fitting Kovu's description -- white with grey
patches on the back -- had been collected by council workers and
disposed of on January 2.
But Miss Gosling (28) cannot identify the animal because the council
routinely disposes of dead cats without scanning them for microchips --
which hold information about the pet and its owner.
She said: "This was an animal that I cared for greatly, not another
piece of rubbish. I now have no way of knowing if this was my beloved
cat, and this has caused me a lot of unnecessary distress."
A spokesman for Bolsover District Council said: "We have a duty and a
policy with stray dogs where we do check for ID and microchips. But as
an authority, we do not have a duty to deal with stray cats.
"If we find a dead cat we dispose of it straight away -- because of
health issues -- unless it has a collar or visible form of identity."
Miss Gosling got Kovu and his sister Kiera from the RSPCA in August 2005.
The centre inserts microchips in all its animals and scans every
creature -- dead or alive -- that is brought in.
Richard Woodwards of Chesterfield RSPCA said: "It's a two-minute job
with a handheld scanner that costs less than £100. I understand the
lady's complaint -- people want to know one way or the other."
jennifer.ivers@derbyshiretimes.co.uk
11 January 2007

maybe the rspca or cats protection might have a word with this ignorant council