Can somebody have our cat killed?

[zax]

Serious question, even though the subject sounds odd...

Moved house a year or so ago, cats came with us of course. Cats were used to being let out of doors. At the old place, neighbour used to take the cat and feed him, even though asked not to. When we moved to the new place, cat returned to the old place (a 7km walk). Lady took him in and fed him again. So for the past 12 months we've gone backwards and forwards - cat leaves, goes to the old place, lady takes him in and feeds him, we go fetch him, ask her not to keep taking him in and to stop feeding him, bring cat home, cat leaves... repeat ad infinitum, You get the idea.

But now she sent us a letter - pay for his food or next time I'll have him taken to a vet and put to sleep

Is this legal?

Lost track of how many times she has been asked to leave him outside and ignore him if he turns up. We may have had a chance of getting him used to the new place, but not with this going on. Yep, she is buying cat food for him, and apparently she even takes him to bed... ever get the feeling you're being held to ransom by somebody who wants your pussy?

Fortunately cat #2 has no such issues, and has adapted to coming and going at the new location just fine. I'm not particularly a cat lover (they came with the package) but don't really want to have to explain why a "nice old lady" killed the cat to a 4 year old.

[sammy]

I'd ask the police about this, if you want to be sure. However my 2 c:

On one hand, it is your responsibility to take care of your pet (be it a cat or a dog), and watch its comings and goings - if your dog or your cat wanders around, whatever it does or whatever happens to it, it is "your fault" at the end of the day. It is also your "fault" if the cats are used to being let out of doors by themselves, so this does not make any difference.

However, I also seem to remember that PET cats (as opposed to those who live in the wild) do have at least some protection from the law, so I do not think the lady has any "right" to make your cat join the choir invisible. See this for example.

Henkilö, joka pitää lemmikkieläintä tai joka on suostunut siitä huolehtimaan, on vastuussa sen terveydestä ja hyvinvoinnista.

"Any person who keeps a pet, or has agreed to take care of it, is responsible for its health and well-being". (my own quick transl.)

Now the tricky bit is: if the lady has "agreed to take care of it", even if you have asked her not to do so - could she not also, in principle at least, make the decision to "put it to sleep"? This I can not answer - so, it's best to ask the police.

The nice old lady sounds a bit odd, all the same.

[Mark I.]

Ask Hank, maybe he'll even give you a few bucks for the task.


...get me coat...

[mrjimsfc]

You will have to pay some serious attention to this problem! The vet will charge up to 100 euros to "euthanize" (kill) the cat and bury it in the "Pet Semetary", then it still comes back.....(did you see the movie?)

[rinso]

Sent her an official letter (with notification of reception), stating your demands (not feeding, not taking inside) reject her demands for food money and threaten with legal action if she does not comply or even put it to sleep.
It might not stop here from doing what she wants, but in a conflict it makes the positions clear.

Since it's a tame cat (your property) she is not allowed to have it killed. Wild cats however may be killed.
But on the other hand, you are not allowed to let your cat roam free in an urbanized area. It can be caught and brought to a stray animal centre.

[zax]

Thanks. Letter will be written and delivered this weekend, and cat picked up again. Let's see what happens after that. Hopefully nothing terminal

Up until this I thought she was a nice old lady, now having serious second thoughts....

As I said to Mrs Zax - this is outrageous! If anybody clips that furry little monster it's gonna be me But seriously, junior would be beside himself and I don't want that.

[Hank W.]

Here's a letter I'd send

[littlefrank]

Either,

1) Get your old neighbour to sell up and move next door.

2) Buy an expensive video camera and follow your cat, make a documentary of it's travels and call it 'Cat hy Come Home'

3) Read this link.

http://www.wikihow.com/Keep-a-Cat-from- ... t-Is-Moved

[smoo]

But on the other hand, you are not allowed to let your cat roam free in an urbanized area. It can be caught and brought to a stray animal centre.

Is there a good, balanced reason for this law in Finland? Disease control, bird protection or whatever? I love cats and miss having them around here. I would get one if (a) I didn't live in a top floor apartment (b) the aforementioned law was not in place. Cats are resourceful and independent creatures and need to wander around as they please. To the extent that they live with you it is only as a place to rest, eat, be stroked (when it suits them of course) and maybe watch some telly. Not like dogs, those insufferably needy and irritating attention-seekers. Not having a cat myself, it would be nice to be able to meet them around the neighborhood, but the singular lack of cats in Helsinki is a depressing fact of life. The only ones I ever see belong to one of my neighbours and are (unbelievably) on leashes when he takes them outside for about 5 minutes every other day.

Your strange old lady sounds like a mad and vindictive old witch. Why would she want to kill your cat if she likes it enough to feed it and sleep with it? The stiff letter requiring her to desist in her interference sounds like a good idea. Old ladies are the trollops of the cat world, always luring faithful animals away from their owners with a bowl of milk or other such charm.

[Hank W.]

Well, for one, cat is a dog

Koirakuri

Yleisen järjestyksen ja turvallisuuden säilymiseksi koiran omistajan tai haltijan on:

1) pidettävä koira taajamassa kytkettynä;

2) pidettävä huolta siitä, ettei koira pääse kytkemättömänä kuntopolulle tai muulle sen kaltaiselle juoksuradalle eikä lainkaan yleiselle uimarannalle, lasten leikkipaikaksi varatulle alueelle, toriaikana torille taikka yleiseen käyttöön kunnostetulle ladulle tai urheilukentälle, jollei se ole erikseen sallittua;

3) pidettävä huolta siitä, että koiran uloste ei jää ympäristöön hoidetulla alueella taajamassa.

-snipetisnip-

Mitä 1 momentin 2 kohdassa säädetään, koskee myös kissaa. Mitä 1 momentin 1 ja 2 kohdassa säädetään, koskee myös hevosta sekä soveltuvin osin muuta koti- tai lemmikkieläintä.

For the other cat is a rat

Rauhoittamattomia eläimiä ovat:

1) metsämyyrä, vesimyyrä, kenttämyyrä, peltomyyrä, lapinmyyrä, isometsähiiri, isorotta ja kotihiiri; sekä

2) korppi (poronhoitoalueella), varis, harakka, harmaalokki, merilokki, kesykyyhky ja räkättirastas.

Villiintyneeseen kissaan sovelletaan, mitä rauhoittamattomista eläimistä säädetään.

[Hank W.]

oops, I saw double

[sammy]

But on the other hand, you are not allowed to let your cat roam free in an urbanized area. It can be caught and brought to a stray animal centre.

Is there a good, balanced reason for this law in Finland? Disease control, bird protection or whatever? I love cats and miss having them around here.

Two reasons:

1) even if you happen to like cats, it does not mean everyone likes them;

2) animal protection, not only regarding birds, squirrels and what have you, but also for the cats' own sake. They may be "resourceful" and "independent" but not even nearly as much so as the really resourceful and independent animals at these latitudes, ie the species that belong to the Finnish nature; especially so when temperatures drop considerably below zero. Callous pet owners (yep, they do exist) would easily dodge responsibility - lock the animal out at -20 degrees, and then say "it needs to roam free - it WANTED to go out".

Also, it may not be nice if (and when) your pet cat is accidentally run over by a car; the car drivers do not necessarily like the experience of flattening someone's pet either.

[Hank W.]

The thing is a "wild cat" is a totally different thing as an "abandoned cat" or a "lost pet" cat.

And people snickering to my "Do not take a Summer Man" - the text is verbatim to "do not take a summer cat" from the local animal protection society.

[EP]

Here you have 16 reasons why a cat should not be allowed to run free; http://www.incat.fi/kissasisalle.asp

[smoo]

Two reasons:

1) even if you happen to like cats, it does not mean everyone likes them;

2) animal protection, not only regarding birds, squirrels and what have you, but also for the cats' own sake. They may be "resourceful" and "independent" but not even nearly as much so as the really resourceful and independent animals at these latitudes, ie the species that belong to the Finnish nature; especially so when temperatures drop considerably below zero. Callous pet owners (yep, they do exist) would easily dodge responsibility - lock the animal out at -20 degrees, and then say "it needs to roam free - it WANTED to go out".

Also, it may not be nice if (and when) your pet cat is accidentally run over by a car; the car drivers do not necessarily like the experience of flattening someone's pet either.

I don't think 1) is a valid reason in itself. I don't like women in high heels (they make an irritating noise and clog up traffic flow on the pavement because they can't walk properly), but wouldn't for a moment suggest that there should be a law against them. If unsupervised cats posed a significant danger or major inconvenience to many people (as unsupervised dogs would) then that would be a different matter, but they don't really.

As far as 2) goes, there are two different issues here. There may be a case in Finland for cat control for the sake of bird or other animal protection for all I know, but I'd have to see the evidence before I was convinced. Given the relatively small extent of urban areas in Finland it's hard to believe that there would be a detectable impact on wild bird population levels from domestic cats. There could potentially be a small conflict between the interests of people who wanted cats around and easily visible in their neighborhoods and those who wanted easily visible birds, but again this is by no means a given. The other point, i.e. protecting cats for their own sake, assumes that your average cat is better off in a relatively risk free environment in which it is deprived of its freedom and natural inclinations than it is being in a riskier environment where it is free to roam. From my knowledge of cats I certainly don't think this is the case. Same goes for intentional cruelty - the suffering of the small minority of cats who are forcibly locked out in -20C temperatures has to be balanced against the smaller suffering of the nonetheless far greater number of cats who would otherwise be deprived of their freedom. Re: getting run over - this is a big risk, sure, but one that most owners accept (and more an argument in favour of banning cars from towns than cats I think, to add to all the other ones). As far as psychological trauma to drivers is concerned, to the extent that this is any greater than that associated with running over a wild rabbit or bird, it is presumably due to the the animal being a pet. As long as cat owners accept the risk and said flattenings are accidental, then it would be bizarre for cats to be banned in order to assuage the misplaced guilt of car drivers.

I am very aware that due to my staggeringly bad Finnish I have only got the vague jist of some of those 16 reasons on the page you posted to, EP, and that some of them may contradict what I am saying... if so, I stand to be corrected!