Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!husc6!spdcc!xylogics!cloud9!mm
From: mm@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Mike Mahler)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: wandering domestic cats
Message-ID: <9723@cloud9.Stratus.COM>
Date: 29 Nov 89 16:53:20 GMT
References: <92681@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Organization: Stratus
Lines: 29

In article <92681@pyramid.pyramid.com>, sandra@pyrtech (Sandra Macika) writes:
> 
> Sorry, I didn't feel that this subject was specifically related to OUTDOOR
> or INDOOR, so I left the Subject Line the same as it previously was. I
> figured that was best for the people who already had this subject in their
> KILL file.

    What's this OUTDOOR and INDOOR stuff?

> The judge ruled in favor of the neighbor with the cat because cats do things
> like this by nature, and the woman with the bird should have protected the
> bird.

    Sure, and it's the owners nature to be irresponsible.

        I would have appealed.  What a lousy excuse for a decision.
    Some dogs kill chickens by nature and farmers shoot them LEGALLY
    (not all states).  If I had a license to own a falcon and it
    killed some chickens (which falcons will do) I would be held
    responsible.  

> I think there was also something to the effect that the neighbor with the
> cat wasn't negligent, and did not have malicious intent, so she would not
> have to pay for her cat's deed.

         Maybe it's time to get some laws passed requiring
    restraining cats and forcing responsibility of owners.  Maybe
    then we won't also see so many "FREE KITTENS" signs if people
    are required to register their cats.    -- 


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com