Lawyers for Companion Animals

Comment: I can’t get a rental because I own a dog. So now I’m homeless

FLOSS FLOSS — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 03:34:47 +0000

“Australia’s strict ‘no pet’ rental rules made me choose between having a permanent place to call home or having a dog. I chose my fox terrier”, writes Scarlett Harris, “and now I’m homeless.”

By Scarlett Harris

19 JUN 2017 – 11:35 AM UPDATED 23 JUN 2017 – 7:04 PM

I’ve never had a problem finding a rental property. That was before I decided to be honest about having a dog when putting in an application to rent. In the past two months, since returning from an overseas trip, I’ve enquired about probably 100 rentals and share houses in Melbourne, and inspected around 15, only one of which was explicitly pet-friendly. It also happened to be a dive.

Right now, I am homeless. Luckily, I have savings and a support network of friends and family members who have offered to take me in. The rise of people sleeping rough with dogs in tow is austere and, now having first-hand experience, I can see how easily this can happen when the choice is between having four walls and a roof to call home and giving up a family member.

“These are adults who are having their life choices and choice of companion dictated to them by a landlord.”

Jennifer Duke, review editor at Domain.com, agrees, telling me that the lack of rentals that are pet-friendly results in “at some point, some pet owners [having to] make the decision between having a roof over their head and keeping their dog or cat. These are adults who are having their life choices and choice of companion dictated to them by a landlord.”

Laura, a digital content producer from Melbourne (who asked to have her last name omitted at the risk of damaging future housing prospects), feels this keenly. She had to vacate her current place when the landlords found out she had a cat. Though Laura says she had planned to ask them if she could get a cat a few months into her lease, initially the landlords “said it’s fine to have an animal, and sent us a pet clause to sign promising to have the place fumigated and cover any damage that may be caused by the animal, which we did”.

Despite it being a well-trained, elderly rescue cat, and the house having floorboards and no carpet, “[the landlords] came back and said [they] want to increase the bond by $1000 because we have a cat and didn’t disclose it”.

“I felt very uncomfortable and harassed,” she tells me. “We really were not given a proper explanation for the increase [and] the bond for our place is already way more than the standard four weeks’ rent, [so] I’m now looking for a new place to live.”

“There is a risk with having animals – some of them do cause damage. However, there’s also a risk with children and tenants themselves.”

Duke says she empathises with landlords who don’t allow pets. “There is a risk with having animals – some of them do cause damage. However, there’s also a risk with children and tenants themselves,” she says. But, as an animal-lover and foster-carer, Duke is very concerned by the alarming rate at which pets are dumped due to “difficulty accessing, and maintaining access to, appropriate housing”.

“If the rules didn’t force tenants to ‘ask for permission’ for a pet then… fewer renters would be hiding a cat or a dog,” Duke says. “There will always be some properties that aren’t suitable for animals or where bylaws don’t allow them, but in most other circumstances it doesn’t make sense that animals shouldn’t be allowed.”

Supportive housing is cheaper than chronic homelessness

Not only is it cheaper to provide permanent supportive housing to the homeless, new costings show, but the improvement to their lives is immeasurable.

Laura adds that the lack of pet-friendly landlords and a rental market that seems to be at boiling point. “It also makes you feel like the only way to get approved [as a pet-owner for a rental] is to lie.”

Animal Welfare League Queensland Strategic Director, Joy Verrinder, believes that “laws should be reformed to make it illegal for any body corporate or landlord to refuse a resident with a pet—as long as they can demonstrate they are a responsible owner”.

“The decision should be based on the individual animal as their suitability will depend on many factors such as activity level of the animal and their owner, personality and training,” Verrinder says.

‘Sleepbus’ gives homeless people a comfortable place to sleep

There are over 100,000 homeless people in Australia. Entrepreneur, Simon Rowe was one of them 20 years ago, which is why he has designed a state of the art shelter facility which aims to end the rough sleeping arrangements that many homeless people face.

And if efforts to combat homelessness such as Sleepbus, a portable, short-term alternative to spending the night outside, allows four-legged companions, then why can’t rental properties?

The only thing that’s kept me going throughout these months of uncertainty is having my fox terrier by my side. No matter where I am, if she’s with me, I’m home. So why don’t landlords and real estate agents understand this?

At the time of writing, Scarlett was homeless. As of publication, Scarlett is still without a permanent home and has temporarily moved back in with her mum while she continues to look for a rental property.

Scarlett Harris is a freelance writer musing on femin- and other -isms. You can read her previously published work at her website, The Scarlett Woman, and follow her on Twitter @ScarlettEHarris.

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/06/19/comment-i-cant-get-rental-because-i-own-dog-so-now-im-homeless

Housing commissioner had no duty of care to dog attack victim, lawyers argue

FLOSS FLOSS — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 03:03:00 +0000

July 16 2015

Christopher Knaus

IMAGE ABOVE: Patrick Hartigan and Joanne Mangan with their son Jack, 12, who was mauled by two pit bulls when he was just six years old Photo: Melissa Adams

And even if that duty of care existed, the government has argued it acted reasonably and could not have known the dogs were a hazard while they were inside and under the control of their owner.

Jack Hartigan, now 11, was attacked by the dogs while visiting the public housing property on his first play date in late 2010.

He suffered horrific injuries, and has sued the ACT’s commissioner for social housing.

It is alleged that the government had been warned about the two dogs and the danger they posed repeatedly, yet did nothing to ensure the property was safe.

On Thursday, barrister Vanessa Thomas, representing the commissioner, put her closing submissions to the ACT Supreme Cour

She said there was no duty of care owed to Mr Hartigan by her client.

Ms Thomas argued that her client, unlike Domestic Animal Services, had no power to remove the dogs, or prohibit them from being on the premises.

An eviction, Ms Thomas argued, would have been contrary to the central purpose of the commissioner’s role in providing public housing to those in need, and therefore did not create a duty of care.

“My client has a statutory obligation to provide housing to people in need and in my submission that extends to keeping them in housing when they are in need,” she said.

She argued the tenancy agreement held no prohibition on the woman keeping pets.

“There was no basis on which my client could require her to get rid of these dogs,” she argued.

Ms Thomas argued laws that gives landlords a duty of care to visitors only applied to the physical state of the premises.

She argued that the duty being claimed by the plaintiff was “novel”, and did not fit into any accepted category of duty of care, requiring the plaintiff to prove the characteristics of the relationship that proved such a duty.

Ms Thomas said that had not been done.

Further written submissions will be received from Mr Hartigan’s lawyer, John Purnell, SC.

Earlier on Thursday, Mr Purnell told the court that the knowledge of the dogs on behalf of Housing ACT was the central issue.

He said the government knew there was a danger, in the form of two dogs, at the premises.

Justice Hilary Penfold will reserve her decision, but warned it may take some time to hand down.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/housing-commissioner-had-no-duty-of-care-to-dog-attack-victim-lawyers-argue-20150716-gidr3c.html

Pugs, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, Boston terriers: being crippled by cuteness

FLOSS FLOSS — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 02:55:43 +0000

Julie Power |

IMAGE ABOVE: Foster Care Co-ordinator, Tim Moss, and vet, Jade Norris with a dog who has just had an operation to help his breathing. Photo: Janie Barrett

Julie Saunderson sees her family’s pets, a pug and two French bulldogs, as members of the family. But two, including a much loved bulldog called Daisy, suffered such agonising pain from problems typical of their breeds that the Faulconbridge family had to put them down after expensive vet treatment failed to fix the problems.

“Losing Daisy the way we did was the hardest thing ever,” she said. “It was like losing a child.”

Rachel English, of Camden, also “loves her furbaby [a three-year-old French bulldog Benny] to pieces,” but she wouldn’t buy another short-headed dog after watching him struggle to breathe day to day.

Typical of his breed and many other short-headed or brachycephalic dogs, Benny can’t walk more than a few minutes at a time. He suffers from sleep apnoea and shakes with pain from cervical deformities.

“I don’t think how they have been bred is humane: It is so unnatural for a dog to be so out of breath all the time, and have these back issues because they are so compressed,” said Ms English.

Her decision coincides with a backlash against these cute dogs. Experts say their flat faces, big eyes, little noses and ears – bred by design to shorten their muzzles to make them appear non-threatening – appeal to us because they look like human babies.

Brachycephalic dogs include pugs, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, Boston terriers, Cavalier King Charles spaniels and shih tzus – very commonly seen in the handbags of the rich and famous.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pugs-english-bulldogs-french-bulldogs-boston-terriers-being-crippled-by-cuteness-20170629-gx0yis.html?btis

Proposed laws against farm activists smell fishy says John Kleinig

FLOSS FLOSS — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:29:16 +0000

SEVERAL state and federal politicians have initiated moves to address cruelty to farm animals.

Proposed legislation purports to protect the interests of animals and has been prompted by break-ins at piggeries, ostensibly to photograph and expose animal mistreatment.

As consumers and moral beings we have good reason to be concerned about being the beneficiaries of cruelty.

However, a closer look at such legislation and the motivations behind it reveal a different story.

Its sponsors allege that what is at stake is Australia’s profitable domestic and export meat industry, which is being threatened by allegations of cruelty by groups whose ultimate goal is to make us all vegetarians.

As a meat eater, I suspect that many of those revealing mistreatment in the meat industry do have this as a long-term goal.

But that goal is distant from the much more reasonable goal of combating animal cruelty. Unless, of course, industry representatives want to tell us that cruelty is essential to the viability of their industry.

I suspect they do not but perhaps it is more important to profitability than they wish to let on because diminishing cruelty will be costly.

So they have chosen a strategy to make it much more difficult for animal rights groups to access properties, highlight the privacy invasion, increase penalties for trespass, make it a biosecurity hazard and require the immediate reporting of photographic evidence of mistreatment to authorities, thereby making it difficult to build a solid case against offenders.

As important as the meat industry is to Australia’s economy, the bottom line is whether it is or must be carried on the back of animal cruelty.

As a civilised country we should be opposed to that possibility.

Prof John Kleinig is criminal justice ethics specialist at Charles Sturt Universit

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/opinion/proposed-laws-against-farm-activists-smell-fishy-says-john-kleinig/story-fnkerdb0-1227006131736

Pets caught in divorce fallout as spiteful couples hurt innocent animals

FLOSS FLOSS — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:23:29 +0000

BY Ainsley Pavey

LIKE a red rag to a bull, the newly acquired puppy leaps playfully from the car and into the marital version of World War III in suburban Australia.

A jilted ex-wife has just caught her cheating ex-husband and his lover at her house downloading a computer hard drive and has called police.

She pounces on the puppy in the driveway, threatens to throw it over a fence, but in her white-hot rage chooses to punt it a metre into the clutches of her former husband.

When her rage subsides, she recalls only “calmly passing the dog to the husband to ensure it left with him”. Not surprisingly, her argument is found to be “unpersuasive”.

The puppy case is sadly one of the more tame acts of cruelty uncovered by The Courier-Mail, with a rising number of animals ducking for cover in marriage breakdowns.

The threats to kill, strangle and maim pets are becoming part of the regular revenge tactics of warring couples as they share custody of children and animals.

“It happens fairly regularly where couples split up,” Australian Divorce Blog author Stephen Page told The Courier-Mail.

“Many people have pets and it is very easy to fight over animals. There is nothing worse than having a woman and kids in a refuge who go back because the animals are being mistreated.”

The RSPCA’s Michael Beatty said an animal respite service helping pets of women fleeing violence was currently handling more than 100 animals a year.

“When we set up, we expected to have about five dogs a year,” Mr Beatty said.

“Animals have a sixth sense and are very sensitive to the emotions of a marriage break.”

Latest ABS figures suggest Queenslanders are more likely to be childless.

And with one in three Australian marriages ending in divorce, it is perhaps unsurprising that the number of divorce cases involving spats over animals is also rising.

Under the Family Law Act, violence against animals is a form of family violence, empowering judges to take a big stick to litigants who drag animals into a divorce fight.

It is often the case that a badly behaving pooch has driven a disgruntled spouse to the edge.

In one case, a 62-year-old husband was charged with domestic violence when he hit the pet dog with a broom to stop it urinating on the marital bed towards the end of his 15-year marriage.

Queensland-based Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Burnett said the husband tried to “underplay” his “reprehensible conduct” against the terrier.

“The breed is well known and it’s hardly of the kind to strike terror in the hearts of most able-bodied persons,” Judge Burnett said.

There are plenty of examples in the Family Court of dogs being mistreated, with perhaps the worst being the beating inflicting on a bull-mastiff in 2012.

The dog had ripped some latticework from the side of a house and was beaten by a father in front of a child and mother.

In one case, a 62-year-old husband was charged with domestic violence when he hit the pet dog with a broom to stop it urinating on the marital bed towards the end of his 15-year marriage.

The father threatened to “cut the dog’s neck” while punching it in front of his screaming son.

Another violent ex-husband turned on a dog belonging to his ex-wife’s new partner, attempting to strangle it in front of onlookers.

Another father beat the family dog in earshot of his children to “teach it a lesson”.

According to the Family Court of Australia, animals are regarded as “personal property” in a marital split, which means they have to be valued.

In one valuation in Queensland, receivers were dragged into a dispute to decide on the custodial arrangements of a horse when the couple failed to reach an agreement.

In another recent property fight, an ex-wife walked away with nine pedigree dogs worth $30,000 in her split with her ex-husband after a 24 year marriage.

Animals are also often used in the toxic post-separation games played out by warring spouses.

In one hostile prank, an ex-husband broke into his ex-wife’s home and replaced her couch with the dog bed and placed the television remote control beside it.

Another ex-husband had cried poor to the Family Court with claims he was “trimming the meat of the dog bones” to feed himself. The property pool had included a Volvo and a Range Rover.

According to the Family Court of Australia, animals are regarded as “personal property” in a marital split, which means they have to be valued.

Mr Page said property settlements often involved lawyers and litigants meeting at the marital home to split belongings, including the animals.

“People don’t want to go all the way to court and spent $50,000 to argue over animals, so it is usually decided that one person is closer to the pets,” Mr Page said.

But in some cases, it can all go horribly wrong.

For instance, a Queensland divorcee once organised to get the family dog “put down” before the property settlement, leaving lawyers to break the news to her ex-husband.

Another divorcee was brought to tears after learning of the death of the 16-year-old family dog weeks afterwards when their only child dropped it into conversation.

Pets caught in divorce fallout as spiteful couples hurt innocent animals

Frankston Council’s decision to destroy two dogs ‘unnecessary and despicable’, says lawyer

FLOSS FLOSS — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 01:48:58 +0000

Christian Tatman | Frankston Standard Leader

IMAGE ABOVE: Protesters holding a demonstration against council putting down two dogs owned by Shannon Holt and partner Evan Jeremiejczyk. Picture: Tanya Fry.

LAWYER Anne Greenaway has slammed Frankston Council’s announcement that it has destroyed two dogs.

Ms Greenaway, who acted for owners Shannon Holt and Evan Jeremiejczyk, described the move as “unnecessary and despicable”.

She argued the council destroyed the dogs to save face.

“If these dogs went somewhere else, it would be clear they were not dangerous. It’s got nothing to do with the protection of the community,’’ she said.

Ms Greenaway said interstate organisations offering to take the dogs were fully aware of their background.

Supporters of two death row dogs are livid after Frankston Council announced the dogs had been destroyed.

Owner Shannon Holt said she was disgusted at the way she and partner Evan Jeremiejczyk had been treated during the long-running dispute over the dogs.

Two dogs owned by Shannon Holt and her partner were put down by Frankston Council. Picture: Tanya Fry.

A distraught Ms Holt, who repeatedly broke down in tears, said the council had lacked compassion.

Ms Holt was only informed of the demise of the dogs this afternoon.

“It’s proven it was not my dogs (that killed a cat). My dogs didn’t hurt the cat,” she said.

Outraged supporters have posted angry and impassioned comments on the council’s Facebook page.

Shel Williamson described the euthanasia of the dogs as an “utter disgrace”.

“With so many options that could have been explored, council has decided to choose the very least compassionate option. Shame on you,” Ms Williamson said.

Jo-Anne posted a picture of a memorial with candles for the dogs and added: “You horrid people.”

Liz Miller described the action as “outrageous, thoughtless and totally heartless”.

Others said the destruction of the dogs was shameful.

SUPPORTERS LAUNCH PETITION TO SAVE DEATH ROW DOGS

Protesters holding a demonstration against council putting down two dogs owned by Shannon Holt and partner Evan Jeremiejczyk. Pictured is Kim Jeremiejczyk with her protest sign. Picture: Tanya Fry.

Frankston Council announced this afternoon that the two dogs, Charlie and Sharni, had been euthanised.

In a lengthy statement, mayor Darrel Taylor stated that the dogs had been “humanely euthanised by a qualified veterinary practitioner”.

“This decision was not taken lightly. Our council considers every such case carefully based on all the information available to ensure we act responsibly on behalf of our community,” he said.

“Due to the legal and case review process, council has not been in a position to fully respond to some provocative media coverage.”

Cr Taylor acknowledged 11th hour efforts to save the dogs, including a push for them to be sent interstate.

“While offers to assess and rehouse the dogs were received from interstate, these offers were made without full knowledge of the circumstances and the history of the animals,” he said.

“Council did not accept these offers as they could not give a 100 per cent guarantee the dogs would not be a risk to people and animals when re-released into a community.

“Council was not prepared to hand over our legal and moral responsibilities.

“It is council’s responsibility to investigate and prosecute domestic animal attacks. Council will determine the future of the attacking animal and, where there is sufficient evidence, may humanely euthanase in the best interests of the broader community.”

COUNCIL ADOPTS HARD-HEARTED ATTITUDE TO EUTHANISE DOGS

A memorial for Shannon Holt’s dogs Sharni and Charlie. Picture: Facebook.

Cr Taylor said the council reinforced its message of responsible pet ownership, including that dogs must be kept securely on their premises and kept on a lead when outside the premises unless within a designated off-leash area.

Supporters furiously lobbied last week for the dogs to be saved, but this was rejected by Frankston Council.

Ms Holt told the Leader last week that funds from an anonymous donor had already been soaked up in legal fees and neither she nor Mr Jeremiejczyk had the money for a Supreme Court challenge to the council’s decision.

She said she and Mr Jeremiejczyk were financially and emotionally exhausted by the battle to save the dogs.

Ms Holt and Mr Jeremiejczyk pleaded guilty to a range of charges including having a dog at large and dog attack serious injury causing death at the Frankston Magistrates’ Court in February.

Pets no longer just part of furniture in France

FLOSS FLOSS — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:36:42 +0000

Pets – classed under French civil law as property like tables and chairs – are to be given a new legal status as ‘sentient beings’

Photo above: Alamy

By David Chazan, Paris

Pets in France will no longer be considered as pieces of furniture, after parliament voted to grant them new rights.

This should make it easier to prosecute cases of animal cruelty and help courts to decide who gets custody of cats or dogs when couples divorce, campaigners said.

The vote in the national assembly on Tuesday night followed a long campaign by animal welfare groups, but it still has to be approved by the Senate.

MPs decided to review the status of pets after 678,000 people signed an online petition. Among them were a number of French scientists, academics and a former education minister.

Reha Hutin, head of the animal protection society, 30 Millions d’Amis (30 Million Friends), which started the petition, said it was “ridiculous to see pets as pieces of furniture that can walk by themselves”.

Franck Mejean, a divorce lawyer, said the new status would end a “legal grey area” for pets in custody battles. “I have already asked a judge to award shared custody of a cat,” Mr Mejean said. “Neither spouse wanted to part with it.”

The change will bring the civil law into line with the penal code, which sets tough penalties for cruelty to animals.

Two months ago, a man was sentenced to a year in prison after posting a video of himself tossing a kitten into the air, and breaking its leg.

Christophe Marie, a spokesman for the Brigitte Bardot Foundation welcomed the “long overdue” change but said “it does nothing to challenge the exploitation of animals”.

Pets are legally considered to be property in England so that owners can press charges or claim compensation if they are stolen. But not surprisingly in a nation of animal lovers, pets in England were the first to benefit from animal protection laws introduced in 1844.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10771361/Pets-no-longer-just-part-of-furniture-in-France.html

Pets in France get legal status as ‘living beings capable of feelings’

FLOSS FLOSS — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:34:05 +0000

Posted Apr 18, 2014 10:27 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Pets in France are no longer just “movable goods” as a result of a bill passed by the National Assembly.

The new bill amends the civil code to describe animals as “living beings capable of feelings,” according to the International Business Times. Lawmakers acted on Tuesday after nearly 700,000 people signed an online petition seeking a more modern definition of animal. The Telegraph, Mail Online and RFI also have stories.

The new law is expected to allow pet owners to claim damages for suffering when their animals are killed, according to IBT. It will also have an impact in divorce cases, according to divorce lawyer Franck Mejean.

“I have already asked a judge to award shared custody of a cat,” he told the Telegraph. “Neither spouse wanted to part with it.”

Critics say the bill could lead to suits challenging slaughter practices, hunting and scientific research.

Family’s pet shot at tip by council ranger

FLOSS FLOSS — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 02:15:45 +0000

Daily Liberal

By LISA MINNER

PHOTO: CONTRIBUTED" src="http://cdn.fairfaxregional.com.au/preview/c1200x678/silverstone-feed-data/165b32af-ab64-48ea-b1e3-12c0d28fad39.jpg" alt="Much-loved family pet Ninja was shot by a Walgett Shire Council ranger at the local tip after he had been removed from his owners who were unaware they had surrendered him.

PHOTO: CONTRIBUTED" data-media-host="http://cdn.fairfaxregional.com.au/" data-original="/silverstone-feed-data/165b32af-ab64-48ea-b1e3-12c0d28fad39.jpg" data-fixed-size="large" />Much-loved family pet Ninja was shot by a Walgett Shire Council ranger at the local tip after he had been removed from his owners who were unaware they had surrendered him. PHOTO: CONTRIBUTED

See your ad here

A COLLARENEBRI family is devastated after discovering their much-loved dog, Ninja, was shot dead the day he was removed from their backyard by a council ranger.

The woman, *Kate, said she did not know how to tell her children their much-loved pet was dead.

“They’ll be so upset, they really loved that dog,” she said.

The mother was alerted to the ranger’s early-morning visit when she heard him banging on the side of her house.

She went outside to see what was causing the noise and found him in her yard.

“The dog catcher came out with a rope in his hand and took Ninja out to the tip and shot him in the head,” she said, still upset at the memory.

The woman said she was initially confused by the situation and didn’t know if he was allowed to take their dog or not.

She said the ranger told her to sign something which she later discovered was a form saying she had surrendered the dog.

“I said where are you taking him and he said they would probably take him to Dubbo and he’d end up in a good home with an enclosed yard,” she said

“I was believing what he said, but I still didn’t know if he should be doing that.”

Kate said she had heard Ninja had escaped from their yard and knocked over a couple of bins in the street.

She said it had been seen and noted by the garbage truck driver the day before Ninja was taken away.

A couple of hours after the dog was removed Kate said she felt the situation was not right.

“I rang and said I wanted to know where my dog was because I didn’t think he could do that, and I was told he’d been taken to Sydney.”

She said when she got home she vowed to find her dog and called as many pounds in the Sydney area as she could.

None had been sent a dog from Collarenebri.

After a series of calls she spoke to a woman from Sydney Pet Rescue and Adoption who pursued the matter on her behalf.

Kate had been told the dog had been shot the same day he was taken.

“We wanted the dog, I don’t understand why he didn’t just give me a warning and leave him with me,”?Kate said.

Walgett Shire Council’s director of planning and regulatory services Matthew Goodwin said the incident had been handled correctly as far as procedure went.

He said the dog had been surrendered and therefore did not need to be impounded for the usual seven to 14 days.

“The dog was considered a nuisance dog and was repeatedly found out on the street,” he said.

“She voluntarily surrendered the dog and then changed her mind about it later.”

Mr Goodwin said it was not unusual to destroy animals on the same day as they were collected.

“We have to consider the health and condition of the animal and western areas tend to have more dogs than people,” he said.

When the Daily Liberal asked if Ninja had been shot at the local tip Mr Goodwin said he had.

He added it was not unusual to destroy animals by shooting them, nor was it illegal.

“It is a near instantaneous death from a single bullet,” he explained.

See your ad here

“Every council has their own way of treating a situation but inland the animals tend to be shot rather than given an injection.”

Mr Goodwin said the council ranger did tell Kate her dog had been rehomed but he said the ranger did it to protect her feelings.

“It was not the correct way to handle the situation and that won’t happen again.”

*not her real name

http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1215523/familys-pet-shot-at-tip-by-council-ranger/?cs=112

Showing 5 of 26 comments

Silicozzo

It’s unacceptable.It was an act of cruelty against a defenseless animal.It’s so sad that lately many of these case have been happening in a crescendo.

Dianef26

what!! how can they pick up a dog and kill him same day. There was no time for this error to be rectified or even any chance of him being rehomed, disgusting and heartless

Kayl

There are a few issues going on here. Firstly would this have happened to a wealthy family in town? I think not. Secondly there are either no policies in place to follow or they aren’t being followed! And finally shooting a dog? This is the 21st century!

Lisa Zafar

It is truly sick and disturbing a modern country can have such heinous acts happening with out really a thought about it. And the people who can carry it out obviously have no conscience was is worrysome. We live in sad times….

Geoff

Absolutely disgraceful. Unfortunately, people do not know their rights and can’t stand up to bullies in positions of authority. As pointed out by others, if the ranger had the right to take the dog he would not have needed a surrender form. Statement by Walgett council says the dog was shot about midday same day because it did not have a potential adopter – presumably this about the same time it took the ranger to drive to the tip and pull the trigger, so it’s not as though they tried.

Malber

I have just read Walgett Council’s statement on their website, which details their version of events.I regard this as lacking in
credibility and a poor attempt at risk management.

I do not believe Council’s report of what happened to Ninja and the
little stray collected by council on the same day.

The story the owner told me of how the ranger pressured and coerced her,
into signing surrender papers, which she did not understand, was credible and
consistent over several conversations.

Does this council not understand the concept of “informed consent?”

Whilst Ninja’s owner’s story was consistent and credible, Council is reliant on the the word of a ranger whom they have established to be a LIAR on this matter, for their version of events.

Does anyone believe this statement from Council-

“Given that the animal was surrendered and council could not identify a potential new owner it was euthanased around midday on 21.12.12.”

Consider that they only seized Ninja around 8-8.30am that morning..so they only had him in their possession for literally a couple of hours before they took him to the rubbish tip and shot him.

How hard do you think they tried to find him a home?

Remember also that at the time of seizing Ninja, the ranger first told the owner that Ninja was a lovely Labrador who would easily find a home when they send him to Dubbo, and then when the owner made a follow up call a couple of hours after Ninja had been seized, he told her that he was a lovely dog and had been sent to Sydney for re homing with a Lab breeder.

And now Council is expecting us all to belie

YOUR SAY: Pet lawyer speaks out against domestic animal trapping

FLOSS FLOSS — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:59:39 +0000

20 Nov 12 @ 11:32am by Paula Maud

IMAGE ABOVE: Dean Nicholson with Charlie, the son of Bubba, who was euthanised after being trapped in a neighbour’s cat trap. Picture: ANGIE BASDEKIS.

Dean Nicholson with Charlie, the son of Bubba, who was euthanised after being trapped in a neighbour’s cat trap. Picture: ANGIE BASDEKIS.

THE practice of trapping cats on suburban blocks has been caned by a pet defender.

Anne Greenaway, a principal with Lawyers for Companion Animals, said the accidental trapping of an elderly cat in Reservoir in September was an example of how the practice could go wrong.

Dean Nicholson’s 15-year-old cat, Bubba, was desexed and had the tell-tale ear tattoo of a domestic pet, but was neither microchipped nor registered and was not wearing a collar when she was trapped in the yard of a neighbour on September 7.

Mr Nicholson said when he rescued Bubba 15 years ago there had been no legal requirement to microchip pet cats.

Mr Nicholson learned Bubba was collected by a council ranger a day after her disappearance and transported to the Lost Dogs’ Home where she was promptly put down.

http://preston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/comments/pet-lawyer-speaks-out-against-domestic-animal-trapping/

Should residents be allowed to trap cats? Tell us below.

Darebin Council’s manager of economic development and civic compliance, Eddy Boscariol urged residents to microchip and register pets with up-to-date details to prevent such incidents occurring.

He said the council had been advised that the cat had been euthanased for humane reasons as it had been found to be diseased.

Lost Dogs’ Home general manager Sue Conroy said Bubba would have been assessed by two vets before a decision was made about her fate.

“The last thing they (the vets) want to do is to put down someone’s pet,” Ms Conroy said.

But Mr Nicholson insisted his cat had been in good health at the time of her capture.

“She would sleep in my bed and wait for me when I got home,” Mr Nicholson said. “We were really connected.”

Mr Boscariol said cat trapping by residents was permitted in order to catch strays.

“Section 23 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 allows the owner or occupier of private property to trap cats that trespass on their property,” he said.

But Ms Greenaway said some people used baits to entice cats onto their property and both loved family pets and stray cats were being caught in the traps.

“There is no way of distinguishing between an unowned cat and a family pet which is what occurred in this case,” she said.

http://preston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/comments/pet-lawyer-speaks-out-against-domestic-animal-trapping/



COMMENTS

Shari Goodwin writes:
Posted on 27 Nov 12 at 04:27pm

This is horrid! I am in tears! A sad loss! My heart goes out to the owner!

Kathleen Chapman writes:
Posted on 26 Nov 12 at 03:20pm

It is tragic and shameful that the Bubba, a cat who was loved and cared for, was killed within 24 hours of entering the Lost Dogs’ Home I am appalled that Darebin ratepayers’ are paying this organisation for animal management. I would like to see Darebin Council demand that the Lost Dogs Home take action to reduce its extremely high kill rate, and use another contractor for animal management if significant improvement is not made. Other pounds in Australia and overseas, such as the RSPCA shelter in the ACT, and the pound operated by the Animal Welfare League of QLD on the Gold Coast, manage to save more than 90% of all animals entering their shelters. This hasn’t occurred by accident – it has been achieved by implem enting a range of actions that have been proven time and time again to save lives. It involves working in partnership with animal rescue groups, actively promoting animal adoption in local media, doing a high number of desexing surgeries at low cost, and, as the Lost Dogs’ Home should have done in Bubba’s case – doing everything possible to ensure lost animals are reunited with their guardians. The animals of Darebin deserve no less.

Animal Rights and Rescue group writes:
Posted on 25 Nov 12 at 05:11pm

Victoria’s Domestic Animal Act 1994 was from the start was quickly tagged the ‘nuisance dog and cat Act’ due to the overall negatives about pets and the use of employed contractors to pick up stray cats and then target managed and cared for cat colonies. Mr Nicholson claim that older cats were exempt in the Act from chipping correct and same in NSW Companion animal Act 1999 at the start. A later amendment to the Act in NSW also removed this exemption for older cats BUT how is the public to know this, even rescue groups struggle to keep informed. Giving the public or contractors power to trap domestic cats (then present them as stray/feral) to a pound or shelter LDH in this case is a death sentence. But any shelter with knowledge and compassion would recognise a well cared for mature desexed (ear tatoo) as a loved pet and hold for maximum time at least. Large rescue groups could also run a lost/found program and advertise if they really cared. Animal welfare groups acting as pounds is a conflict of interest and the animals always lose.

Carol Cornish writes:
Posted on 23 Nov 12 at 02:27pm

This is so wrong in every way. Can’t imagine the pain of losing a family member of 15 years. Bubba was scared in a storm. What right did they have to kill Bubba?

None… They have no heart, and this makes me sick!

Doug sethton writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 10:59pm

This is an horrific story and I feel so sad for the man who lost his friend. It is awful. But please be careful to understand what or who may be at fault. It is not the practice of trapping stray cats…..nor lost dogs home who are a pound and need to deal with hundreds of stray cats per week that they have no chance of homing. It is the individuals who sometimes do the wrong thing. If some one catches a cat that is desexed they MUST ask around to find out if anyone owns it before taking it to the pound. I do a lot of cat rescue and rehoming in Melbourne and I know that people dump cats, mistreat them and more. The cat overpopulation problem is growing and is a big issue that we need to address. Rescue groups are full and pounds are faced with a difficult situation. There is more to this situation than meets the eye and you have to be careful in judging.

Orlando Browning writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 10:00pm

My heart goes out to the owner of this cat, and I am disgusted by some of the comments which show a lack of compassion. What sort of a society do we live in, when a neighbour is allowed to trap a cat. The neighbour should be prosecuted, and trapping should be a crime, except for TNR. I am tired of the psychotic cat haters in our society, it is well evidenced, that there is a link between animal cruelty and crimes towards humans.

Naomi Steinberg writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 09:05pm

This is so sad….what is wrong with people that they would do this to cats? There was no reason to trap the kitty, and no reason to put it down. If you see a cat in your neighborhood you think might be stray, knock on your neighbor’s doors and ask. If you feel you have to, take it in and put posters up, but for goodness sake, don’t trap it if the end result will be it going to a kill shelter. Trapping cats in anything but the most humane circumstances (any type of cat) should be considered animal cruelty and prosecuted unless conducted in the most humane way (trap watched non-stop and being done for welfare reasons in relation to that cat).

Julie Milne writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 01:49pm

If an animal has the tattoo in their ear surely that is enough to make the powers that be wait at least the 7 day period!! I get requests to support these places monetarily but am having 2nd thoughts now that is for sure!!! Why didn’t the neighbour look for the owner before sending the cat off anyway? SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!

N Miles writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 09:10am

@Christy you need to familiarize yourself with the laws in Victoria instead of being an arm chair critic from Perth Western Australia and making not a lot of sense. Not sure why you are posting shelter phone numbers for Shelters in Western Australia you do realize this is Victoria?

Rachel writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 07:00am

While it is sad that this cat was euthanased it could so easily have been avoided by microchipping it or getting it to wear a collar and tag. Why do owners not get the message, especially with cats. It is not rocket science!! I am sure the Lost Dogs Home has to make some hard decisions at times, and probably are not happy to be in the position where they have to make that decision, it is easy for people to sit back and point the finger! Identification people, do it!!

Steve writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 06:32am

Short and sweet.

Obviously this is a sad story, and horrible for the owner.

But if the cat was microchipped, he WOULD have been contacted by council/LDH.

End of story.

Cheryl Venables writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 11:54pm

There is a percentage of pets where the microchip is not found although I agree they should be microchipped I have heard some vets don’t actively promote it and I know when I spoke to the Council about my cat who was born before that date they said no need to register???!!!s Therefore what is the message the public is getting here? cat should be allowed in a garden sometimes they go next door – depending on the suburb if there is a lot of bush area or heavy traffic yes agree to have enclosures otherwise why should they not enjoy sunshine in their garden. I have seen many cats on pound websites in western Sydney looking well fed and cared for that are scared and get put down or if kept for a few days the legal 7 in nsw without chips become friendly – something is wrong that so many are being brought into the pounds.

Tashi writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 10:31pm

This man was not irresponsible. His cat escaped during a storm. He did every thing he could to find it. Pity those who found it didn’t do the same to find the owner. Shame on some of the people commenting on here. Yes, she should have been chipped and/or registered but hindsight is a wonderful thing. The fact remains that both the council and the LDH are in the wrong here and should be held accountable. One day it might be your pet.

Kate Fitzhenry writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 09:37pm

Domestic pet trapping should be outlawed, there are far too many animal haters, who willingly trap animals to harm them, or to get rid of them. TNR is different, cats are trapped by qualified rescuers who are trying to save the cats, and prevent litters of stray kittens.

The LDH should be investigated, it should have done everything possible to reunite Bubba with her owner. I feel heartfelt sympathy for the owner of Bubba, I know how I would feel if this had happened to one of my cats.

Tarsha writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 08:39pm

Please all write to Lost Dogs Home and ask why this mans cats will killed. This could be your cat or dog next, your mums cat, your neighbors cat. This is not an isolated case.

Rachel writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 08:21pm

I am horrified, but sadly not surprised, that the LDH would flout the law like this. It is a disgrace and it is past time their practises were scrutinised and held to account.

What I am shocked by is the staggering lack of empathy demonstrated by some of the commenters here. Yes, there unfortunately are irresponsible people who allow undesexed animals to roam all over the place. But there is no evidence that Mr Nicholson allowed his cats to roam at will. Bubba escaped during a storm; she was frightened and ended up in a neighbour’s trap. One of my indoor only cats escaped from my mother’s house while I was on holidays last year – tragically she was killed by a car after two weeks on the run (and while we were frantically searching for her). I guess that makes my mum and me “irresponsible pet owners” who deserve what we get too, does it? Taking the argument to its logical extension, maybe Sian the proponent of cat traps is “irresponsible” for keeping her goldfish in an outdoor pond instead of an indoor aquarium! Or maybe don’t assume that the grieving owner and innocent victim of a high kill pound’s policies was somehow at fault, but assign blame where it belongs.

Jennifer Kaschau writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 07:20pm

How wrong to do this!! My cat had FIV but was not sick..so just kill them huh..and insult their owners who love them? No. It is unethical to do this, we look for our pets if they happen to wander…and shame and damn the council to hell for saying whatever they like to get away with killing a family member.

Glenys Wright writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 06:57pm

i find this totally disgusting for a neighbour to intrap a neighbours cat and to have it then picked up by the pound and put down. i bet this neighbour knew who’s cat it was, gone are the days when our dearly loved animals can roam there own propertys or visit the neighbours as well. i have neighbours animals come to my property but not once do i think about calling the pound to come and collect i know who’s animals they are in my street and i am quite happy for them to visit then see them safely back to there home, i too have 2 cats one will not venture out of house into front yard at all, she will stay within my property but her brother will roam, the neighbours and street catching ferral rats bringing them home to be praised, he is much loved, and i would be devasted if he went to go missing, but he always returns home, shame on cruel heartless people who hate animnals that much that take away an elderly person beloved companion

Chinka chink writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 06:27pm

LDH have killed this pet cat before the 8 day holding period stating the cat had cat flu. So LDH don’t have adequate isolation facilities???? $12,000,000 and no isolation facility??? We don’t believe for a minute this cat was sick but if it was, LDH with all it’s millions should be set up to cater for an unwell cat for a few days

leanne writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 06:12pm

Its discusting to say the very least.i have 2cats and 2 dogs all microchipped and desexed..i keep my cats indoors and my dogs in a secure backyard . however there has been a ccupple of times they have escaped the cats sliding thru someones legs or the dogs doin g the same……….only a couple of times a big mistake to say the least…i have also had a car accident no fault of my own!!! If my animals accidently get out id like to think i would sbe able to collect them with out fear of them being put down .being so scared mayb they would bite out of fear which i think is understandable thats why they have muzzles as for my cats they know only me and yes i think they would scratch tooo and be so terrified they would probly say they were feral………when these people meet our maker god will deal out the punishment….. I believe in life after death and reincarnation so what goes around in this life you will pay for in your next because these people that think killing these animals is ok have not evolved from there last visit on earth…

christy writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 04:14pm

Sian there is no laws to say your cat or any other cat is not allowed to wander so there is no justification for trapping a cat. If you have a cat problem it should be handled by an experienced person like the rangers are supposed to be certiified for this job not fob it of to vigilantes and it should be done in accordance with the cat trapping guidelines. You cannot take the law into your own hands and not one person involved in this has acted in accordance with the law. Again Josie it is not up to the public to enforce the law that is why we have people designated to administer the law. Also there is not reason to trap a cat if it is roaming it is quite within the law. A nuisance doesn’t mean death it means you deal with it within the law. If you took all the cats off the street you would have a huge rabbit, rat and mice problem as has been shown in many studies. Cataphobia should not lead to the automatic kill of all cats.

karen writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 03:30pm

No what a horrible person…Don’t tell me the cat dug a hole…Oh my lord how awful!!!!!

N Miles writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:56pm

This owner is clearly irresponsible. What kind of irresponsible owner lets their cat roam the streets? Cats are companion animals and as such deserve to be treated as such. Owners who let their cats roam are putting the cat at risk of being run over, infected with feline aids, cat flu, and or being the target of animal cruelty. Aside from all of these terrible risks it is illegal to let your cat trespass onto other peoples properties. If you love your cat please keep it confined to your premises for not only its own safety and well being but also to protect our native wildlife.

Tarsha writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:35pm

This is a major problem in most pounds, including the no kill/low kill pounds and shelters.I have spoken to numerous staff/volunteers from many pounds who all say a cat that comes in that appears scared, timid, unowned, wild, feral or diseased is not held for 8 days, they are killed upon arrival as it is seen as an occupational health and safety issue for staff to deal with these cats. In Victoria the Code of Practice for the Management of Shelters and Pounds states: 2.2 Admission: unidentified cat that is wild, uncontrollable or diseased may be euthanased in accordance with the Domestic Animals Act 1994. Lost Dogs Home will milk this loophole in the COP as do other pounds. Once the animal is killed they have disposed of all evidence, who is to say the cat was wild or diseased, the pounds don’t have to provide proof. This tragic story from Preston will be one cat owners word against LDH and 2 vets.

CARMEN costello writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:25pm

Oh how I wept for that poor darling cat old, alone, scared and the pain of the injection and the poor dad. We as a people are getting more and more wicked and cruel each passing day. It is like an insanity has taken us over with the killing of animals. Not to wait the 8 days is appalling, but the person probably wanted their ‘fix’ their ‘high’ for the day, that they get from killing the animals. One day these people will have to face all these animals, they think they wont, got news for them. And they will have to get on bended knee to BEG forgiveness. Polish your dancing shoes you b*&^!+>s, as you will be dancing for a long time in hell with the devil!

Renee Robinson writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:20pm

I think this is a lesson for everybody to keep your pets confined to your property. Long gone are the days where cats in suburbia can roam the neighbourhood. Install a cat enclosure, or net the whole backyard in and even safer still is keeping your cat indoors! Another lesson learnt the hard way is for everybody to microchip their animals… dogs and cats lose collars all the time, the only effective means of identification is microchipping. Keeping cats safely confined protects them from costly abscesses (as a result of fighting with other cats), being hit by cars, attacked by dogs, tortured or hurt, reduces the spread and risk of FIV, FeLV and in this case, from being trapped and PTS. All these scenario’s make vets rich and owners poor. Take responsibility for your own animals, don’t look to blame others. A sad story all round and lessons learnt the hard way.

Susan Taylor writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:13pm

Why wasnt this cat held for the mandatory 8 days? As someone who works rescuing animals from council pounds, I see a lot of beautiful healthy cats, who are clearly loved pets, in pounds. These cats have been trapped by neighbours and taken to the pound. Unfortunately most go unclaimed and are put down. It is difficult for an owner to find a lost cat once it’s in the pound system. In my opinion people shouldn’t be allowed to trap cats either on or off their property, unless they are doing so with their neighbours knowledge and under the supervision of council or another governing body.

christy writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:08pm

continued RSPCA trapping guidelines.CAT TRAPS GUIDE

5. If the cat is not identified endeavour to locate the owner by doorknocking / letterbox drops in your local area. 6. If the owner cannot be located then endeavour to rehome the cat (eg. advertise, contact Cat Haven, contact RSPCA, check your local vet). 7. Ensure that any caught cats are provided with sufficient food and water. 8. Any lactating cat caught in a trap should be released, unless the kittens can also be located and removed as well. 9. In the event the cat needs to be destroyed then take it to your local vet for humane euthanasia. Do not destroy the cat yourself – as techniques such as striking or drowning are unacceptable and may constitute an offence under the Animal Welfare Act. If in doubt – contact the RSPCA for further advice, on 08-9209 9300

christy writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:06pm

CAT TRAPS GUIDE

If it becomes necessary to trap a cat then the following procedures should be carefully followed to ensure the cat is treated humanely. Any ill-treatment of cats may be an offence under the Animal Welfare Act and be subject to prosecution. 1. Use only approved cage traps. Do not use leg-hold or body-grip traps or snares. 2. Ensure the cage is suitably covered to provide any contained cats with protection from the elements. 3. Ensure the cage is regularly checked (at least twice per day) so that caught cats are not caged for extended periods. 4. Check any caught cats for identification and contact the owner. Note: Some cats may be identified with a microchip; which can only be read with a scanner – available at most vets and Council / Shire Rangers. continued…

Dean Nicholson writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 01:48pm

The night Bubba ran out the front door was 6th September during a very wild storm.The person that trapped her said that they were after a black cat that had come into her property and was spraying.My cat Bubba was white.They also said that they had never seen my cat before until the day she was trapped.The law says that the cat must`ve entered your property more than once before they can be trapped.

Susan Borg writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 12:53pm

I hope one day that one of u cats doesn’t run out ur door then get trapped, then get PTS..Sian. What ever happened to talking to ur neighbours & saying, Ive got a problem with ur cat, its coming on my property & eating my goldfish etc..then if the neighbour doesn’t do anything then they have the right to trap it. But please its someone loved animal. The poor old girl probably had her little routine everyday went for her little walk & wouldnt hurt a fly..My cat is desexed & he still likes to go out every morning & say hello to the neighbours then sleep on their sunny bit of grass, then at 11 am comes home & sleeps on my sunny step. I thought they had 7days if they’re not Micro/chipped & 14days if M/C…Some humans are awful & cold, its a bloody cat, not a rapist or murder..

Glen writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 12:25pm

Animals are wonderful critters however, you should be responsible for your animals and considerate of your neighbors. I happen to be a dog lover. My neighbor’s cats come on my property and eat my dog food that I put out for my dogs. If the animals are for your enjoyment keep them on your property and take care of them.

Trapping should be allowed and the authorities given the right to ticket any animal owner who cannot control their animals. The neighbor’s cats have scratched my grandchildren in my yard.

Dean Nicholson writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 12:00pm

I`m Dean Nicholson the owner of Bubba and I would like to say that she was a happy healthy cat and therefore should not have been put down the morning that she was brought in to the Lost Dogs Home.They are supposed to have an eight day policy of holding on to a lost cat chipped or not.After eight days they are then put up for adoption.The excuse I was given was she had cat flu.Also why do they not have any record of my cat being brought in by the Darebin Council?From a phone call I made to Darebin Council three days after she went missing I was told no cat was collected in my area on the day that she was collected and taken to LDH.The key point I want to make is the community expects that if their pet disappears and happens to have been taken by the council to the LDH that the owner has eight days to collect their pet.Furthermore,we don`t expect that they will destroy the pet immediately using as their defence that the cat has cat flu or/and that the cat is feral.There is clearly a major problem with the way the LDH process lost animals.Dean Nicholson.

Charlotte Armstrong writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 11:11am

To allow the public to trap animals is totally wrong. Ms Greenaway is correct in saying that this allows neighbours to entice cats into their gardens and then trap them.

The person who trapped the cat should have had the decency to have checked with the neighbours before sending the cat to its death.

As for the Lost Dogs Home trying to justify the killing. They never gave the owner the chance to reclaim the cat. They have been totally irresponsible and negligent in their thoughtless decision. This is not the first time they have killed a family pet and will probably not be the last.

Rose Lloyd writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 10:34am

This is unbelievably tragic. The fact that this lovely pet was wearing a collar should have given the poor cat at least a few days grace, so the owner could have a chance to find her. If the cat was examined by a vet, why didn’t they see the ear tattoo, and therefore wait a while before euthanizing her? This is a perfect example of why people should NOT be allowed to trap animals. New guidelines should be introduced NOW so vets, pounds and shelters must allow mandatory waiting periods before putting animals down. How heartbreaking.

Karina writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 10:15am

This poor elderly cat was killed for no reason,this poor owner must be devastated!!!The Lost dogs home are coming unstuck as i was a supporter until i found out that they kill so many healthy cats and dogs every year!!!Cat trapping is something that is clearly not right,think how this poor old cat must of been so stressed and then died without her owner there,just with strangers!!!It’s heartbreaking and no one has the right to do that,no one!!!!The LDH have alot to answer for!!!

Nichole Helm writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 10:02am

I would like to see photographs, pathology and vet opinions and recommendations on this cat’s “diseased” condition. An elderly cat is EXEMPT from microchipping laws, in which case there should have been a mandatory holding period to allow the LEGAL OWNER of this cat, to find it. The cat was not doing anything it shouldn’t have been, and to be trapped in a neighbors yard would qualify as entrapment in my opinin, or could you take my kids bu putting a display of lollies in my neighbors yard? Lost dogs home… SHAME on you all! I’d like to see this man sue your asses off, how devastating!

Sian writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 09:55am

Yes you should be able to trap animals on your land. As someone who has had their own inside cats terrorised by a neighbour’s cat not to mention it keeps EATING our goldfish in our pond and spraying everything around my house, I think we are totally within our rights to trap it and take it to the authorities. People need to take more responsibility with their pets.

If the owners don’t microchip or tag their pet and let it wander the streets unsupervised then its their own fault if it gets taken to the pound. What happens when it gets to the pound is nothing to do with who trapped it and turned it in and everything to do with the owner and Council policy.

Josie Mcpherson writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 09:45am

Actually there is Annie – it is called microchipping and registering the pets, which is the law to have a cat – had this cat been chipped, then when it had been caught, it would have been easily detected when the cat was examined, and the cat could quite quickly have been reunited with its owner thanks to the owners details held on the chip register. If anything, this is a call for all pet owners to ensure they have done the right thing in having their cats chipped (many councils have reduced fee days for this to be done, so is very easily arranged), and yearly registration fees should be paid for any cats or dogs kept by a resident, with numbers owned in accordance with council regulations. Whilst I feel for the owner of the cat having lost his girl in this way, the fact remains that it could have been avoided quite easily by him.

The problem though of stray and feral cats roaming, particularly if they are undesexed, is a big one, and disallowing cat traps is not the answer, as these are an important tool in being able to catch these cats that would otherwise avoid capture, and then remain a problem in the area.

Lawyers for Companion Animals

Comment: I can’t get a rental because I own a dog. So now I’m homeless

Would you give up your dog if it meant you fared better in a rental application? (Supplied to SBS by author)

“Australia’s strict ‘no pet’ rental rules made me choose between having a permanent place to call home or having a dog. I chose my fox terrier”, writes Scarlett Harris, “and now I’m homeless.”

“These are adults who are having their life choices and choice of companion dictated to them by a landlord.”

“There is a risk with having animals – some of them do cause damage. However, there’s also a risk with children and tenants themselves.”

Supportive housing is cheaper than chronic homelessness

‘Sleepbus’ gives homeless people a comfortable place to sleep

Housing commissioner had no duty of care to dog attack victim, lawyers argue

Pugs, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, Boston terriers: being crippled by cuteness

Proposed laws against farm activists smell fishy says John Kleinig

Pets caught in divorce fallout as spiteful couples hurt innocent animals

Frankston Council’s decision to destroy two dogs ‘unnecessary and despicable’, says lawyer

LAWYER Anne Greenaway has slammed Frankston Council’s announcement that it has destroyed two dogs.

Pets no longer just part of furniture in France

Pets – classed under French civil law as property like tables and chairs – are to be given a new legal status as ‘sentient beings’

Ms Hutin said parliament had recognised “an obvious fact: animals are beings endowed with feelings”.

Pets in France get legal status as ‘living beings capable of feelings’

Family’s pet shot at tip by council ranger

Showing 5 of 26 comments

YOUR SAY: Pet lawyer speaks out against domestic animal trapping

Should residents be allowed to trap cats? Tell us below.