cat

[fuyan]

You're fighting a losing battle here mate. Your point above could have some relevance if it were a case of you being allergic to birds and a neighbour periodically allowing his/her pet bird to fly into your yard/house. Wild birds are no-one's responsibility. Pet cats are. Hey, if you hate birds so much, you can always shoot them...

Suppose I like wild wolfs and I have some magic to allure wolfs in my yard now and then. You live in the next door 5 meters away. Your children will cry for one week whenever he sees a wolf that's less than 10 meters away. So whenever wolfs are in my yard and your child is in your yard , your child and you suffer for one week. And you still think this is perfectly ok for you?

[sammy]

Suppose I am alergic to birds, and I suffer when birds are in 10 meters to me, perhaps I have to spend money to visit doctors, but my bird loving neighbors still keep alluring birds near my home to make me suffer, do I have rights to ask them to stop doing that? I think I have. But I don't, if simply because I do not like birds.

Nope - you did not understand. What I was getting at was this, we can not decide on behalf of our neighbours what they should like or dislike, or "how true" the motives for their dislikes are. I'm sure you understand that, from one point of view, it makes no difference whether you merely 'dislike X' or (for example) 'are really allergic to X' - if you repeatedly ask him not to do it, in both cases he is being rude if he does not stop... regardless whether X is actually forbidden by rule of law or not.

The pet vs. wild animal thing was to say that it would be plainly weird to try and forbid birds, squirrels and hedgehogs into visiting your yard, but pets (that are a the responsibility of someone - much like kids actually ) are another matter. You may think of course that people shouldn't get upset on, say, your cat mewing on their yard. Thinking so is not forbidden but neither is holding a contrary opinion. The question is, why exactly is your opinion weightier?

This has actually precious little to do with the Feline Foragers themselves, it's rather Neighbourly Norms we're discussing.

Resorting to magic and wolves does not help very much in keeping this discussion on the level of sanity

[Pursuivant]

keeping this discussion on the level of sanity

[catfish78]

Maybe the neighbors are scared of Toxoplasma gondii.

[fuyan]

Well, I have some difficulties to format this post. If you are interested, you have to read the quotes through

[quote="sammy]
Nope - you did not understand. What I was getting at was this, we can not decide on behalf of our neighbours what they should like or dislike, or "how true" the motives for their dislikes are. I'm sure you understand that, from one point of view, it makes no difference whether you merely 'dislike X' or (for example) 'are really allergic to X' - if you repeatedly ask him not to do it, in both cases he is being rude if he does not stop... regardless whether X is actually forbidden by rule of law or not.[/quote]

The difference is that in the second case, the offender is liable for the cost, e.g. doctor visits. And remember, never try anything that is forbidden by law unless you can bear the consequences

The pet vs. wild animal thing was to say that it would be plainly weird to try and forbid birds, squirrels and hedgehogs into visiting your yard, but pets (that are a the responsibility of someone - much like kids actually ) are another matter. You may think of course that people shouldn't get upset on, say, your cat mewing on their yard. Thinking so is not forbidden but neither is holding a contrary opinion. The question is, why exactly is your opinion weightier?

I am not saying that I try to forbid wild birds visting my yards. Why birds show up in or near my yard is because of a bird-loving-neighor who allures them here. Therefore, the guy who keeps ALLURING wild birds in or near my yard must be liable of the consequences, for example, the cost for doctor visits and sick leave from work. But if I am not allergic to birds and I just do not like birds, what I do to that guy solely depend how tolerant I am to people of different habits. By the way, the whole case is just imaginary.

Resorting to magic and wolves does not help very much in keeping this discussion on the level of sanity

This is just an example, so don't be bothered to get offended.

[Mölkky-Fan]

Just to clear something up, alluring is "highly attractive and able to arouse hope or desire"... I guess you mean luring.

When you say 'the guy who keeps ALLURING wild birds in or near my garden' this takes on quite a different meaning

If my neighbour kept alluring, wild birds in my garden then you would hear no complaints from me!

[sammy]

Well, I have some difficulties to format this post.

No offense, but you seem to have at least as much difficulty in grasping the real issue here - so be it, then. I'm losing interest faster than the stock markets are falling.

[Upphew]

I am not saying that I try to forbid wild birds visting my yards. Why birds show up in or near my yard is because of a bird-loving-neighor who allures them here. Therefore, the guy who keeps ALLURING wild birds in or near my yard must be liable of the consequences, for example, the cost for doctor visits and sick leave from work. But if I am not allergic to birds and I just do not like birds, what I do to that guy solely depend how tolerant I am to people of different habits. By the way, the whole case is just imaginary.


This is just an example, so don't be bothered to get offended.

It is possible that authorities forbid the bird feeding and even order to kill them. It has happened here in Lappeenranta (in fact I lived next door to the man who did that, but before it became such a big thing). Some info about the case in finnish: http://www.eduskunta.fi/faktatmp/utatmp ... 06_p.shtml

[fuyan]

Just to clear something up, alluring is "highly attractive and able to arouse hope or desire"... I guess you mean luring.

When you say 'the guy who keeps ALLURING wild birds in or near my garden' this takes on quite a different meaning

If my neighbour kept alluring, wild birds in my garden then you would hear no complaints from me!

Well, It's Friday anyway. Perhaps this is just my gift for your participation of the discussion

[fuyan]

I am not saying that I try to forbid wild birds visting my yards. Why birds show up in or near my yard is because of a bird-loving-neighor who allures them here. Therefore, the guy who keeps ALLURING wild birds in or near my yard must be liable of the consequences, for example, the cost for doctor visits and sick leave from work. But if I am not allergic to birds and I just do not like birds, what I do to that guy solely depend how tolerant I am to people of different habits. By the way, the whole case is just imaginary.


This is just an example, so don't be bothered to get offended.

It is possible that authorities forbid the bird feeding and even order to kill them. It has happened here in Lappeenranta (in fact I lived next door to the man who did that, but before it became such a big thing). Some info about the case in finnish: http://www.eduskunta.fi/faktatmp/utatmp ... 06_p.shtml

Actions must be taken when there are real dangers. Bird feeding should be forbidden during migration season when there is real threat for contagous deaceas. But I cannot forbid my neighbor's habits for bird feeding simply because I do not like birds when there are no any dangers at all.

[fuyan]

Well, I have some difficulties to format this post.

No offense, but you seem to have at least as much difficulty in grasping the real issue here - so be it, then. I'm losing interest faster than the stock markets are falling.

Well, if you are not interested, just go away, with your stupid judgements

[Pursuivant]

bird feeding in helsinki city parks is forbidden, old ladies do it still though for the "poor ducks"... which the food attracts rats and pigeons and seagulls

[Rick1]

bird feeding in helsinki city parks is forbidden, old ladies do it still though for the "poor ducks"... which the food attracts rats and pigeons and seagulls

Smart answer from the mr. in the Finland Forum protection program

Ofcourse you should not feed the birds, this keeps them from searching food themselves and you get e.g. those overweight oravas in the english parks (oh mama that squirl falls all the time from that tree )

Same thing if you guide people immedaitely to KELA, keeps them from working. You can bring your cat to our garden as long as he catches mouses and moles.

[Iseult]

I think OP completely fails to grasp the distinction between "purposeful" and "!"#¤% happens". Of course you cannot completely prevent wild animals from entering your garden and perhaps doing some damage (including but not limited to frightening your children). This is a prime example of "!"#¤% happens".
However, someone luring these wild animals into your garden* or allowing their pets roam free knowing full well they are likely to enter your garden, is purposeful. To spell it out for you: by allowing your cat to run free, you are purposefully causing your neighbours harm and/or annoyance. See the difference?

*Notice that I said yours, not theirs. Unless there is some immediately related harm to you and yours, them luring animals (including birds) into their own garden is none of your beeswax.

[silk]

Well, if you are not interested, just go away, with your stupid judgements

sammy is one of the few people on this forum without stupid judgements.