Category: Animal Cruelty & Protection Laws

The reasons we are so intolerant towards cats.

Cats inhabit every continent except Antarctica and the world is full of cat lovers who find nothing more relaxing than the company of one purring on their lap. For this reason they rank second in popularity in most countries to the dog. But their popularity doesn’t extend to everyone and governments, conservationists, hobbyists and scientists are among the many who dislike them for a variety of reasons.

It seems cats cannot do anything right.

For every person who loves cats there is probably another who hates or has a phobia about them. If a cat digs a hole in someones flowerbed or even worse the vegetable patch, many gardeners will run for their air rifle or garden hose, or resort to even crueller deterrent methods. Dogs though seem to be able to poo wherever they wish and we mostly turn a blind eye to the mess they leave behind or to the abandoned plastic poo bags littering the ground. This is because a large proportion of society do not like cats invading their space even though they have the decency to cover up their toiletry antics unlike dogs.

cat with bird in mouth
Cats are vilified for being predators.

We find them to be the cause of our allergies, are frightened they will asphyxiate our sleeping babies, spread disease and infest us with fleas. We view them as vicious and bad tempered and declaw them, classify them as pests just like rats and are afraid of their aloof attitude or believe they are demonic with their ‘evil’ stare. Hoarders keep hundreds of them confined in their houses little understanding the suffering they are causing.

In retaliation for their perceived crimes or just for fun many torment them, poison them, shoot them with airguns from their bedroom windows. Or kill and mutilate them as in the case of the notorious “cat ripper of Croydon” who allegedly stalked the London Borough luring an estimated 400 cats to their deaths with chicken, before strangling, decapitating and mutilating their bodies. Prosecutions for cat cruelty are common and the offences often vicious.

We hate cats for following their predatory instincts

cat, bird, cat chasing bird
Cats are vilified for decimating bird populations

And we are only talking about pet cats here. When it comes to stray and feral cats it is all out war against them the world over. So what is going on. It would seem that cats are being vilified for just being cats. Their main crime is that they pursue their natural instincts and behaviours as predators and through feckless ownership they have become pests in many people’s eyes.

So who are these people who have an aversion to cats? Well, as already mentioned, there are the gardeners who cannot stand these free roaming creatures that trespass and soil and damage their land. Then we have bird, small mammal, reptile and amphibian enthusiasts who are appalled that they sadistically chase, play, kill and eat hundreds of millions annually.

So called feral cats bear the brunt of all the antagonism. Most feral cats prefer to live alongside us, but remain disassociated from us, preferring to scavenge and hunt in order to survive. But being ‘animal lovers’ we insist on trying to help them, by feeding, catching and neutering them, causing them to live in closer proximity to us. This can then cause conflict when local residents begin to view them as vermin because they cause smells, mess and damage similar to rats.

Governments and conservationists in Australia and New Zealand and many island nations are paranoid about their feral cats because of their impact on small native species of birds, reptiles and small mammals particularly marsupials. Australia has a five year plan ending in 2020 to kill 2 million of them by various methods such as shooting, trapping and poisoning.

They may not be able to breed but they can still eat

Conservationists, many individuals and local and state governments believe extermination is the answer and decry any other initiatives like trapping, neutering and releasing. They believe it is not cost effective and doesn’t decrease numbers because it is impossible to neuter them all and stop owners from abandoning more. And it just maintains large cat colonies which in some circumstances can cause havoc in nearby sensitive wildlife areas. They may not be able to breed, but they can still eat is the stance that the exterminator lobby take.

Cat trapping, feral cats, feral cat colonies
Trap, Neuter & release (TNR). Many observers say they may not be able to breed but they can still kill.

The town of Omaui in New Zealand has plans to be the first authority to ban cats by stopping owners from replacing their pet after it dies to gradually phase them out. Some countries want to ban them going outside at all, others have curfews and bans on letting cats out if they live near vulnerable wildlife. There is a worldwide movement to basically curtail cat owning and stop cats from enjoying a natural life.

Unfortunately, there are far too many people who cannot accept or tolerate the fact that they are predators and no matter how much you try, you can never take the killer instinct out of a predator. In fact it is unfair to do so, or for that matter chide them for doing so. It is through our feckless ownership that we have created the problem of so many stray and feral cats and have put them into this position. Therefore it is only fair that we should endeavour to have more tolerance, otherwise even more stringent regulations will make it impossible for them to enjoy natural lives.

The right to roam, cats cannot trespass
We need a UK Cat Act
New book by John Brookland – available now.
Animals In Trouble book
Buy on amazon

https://amazon.com/author/john-brookland

Related articles:

Animal Welfare Commissioner, Labour’s not so new idea.

Just a case of maintaining standards or championing their rights and interests?

The Labour Party’s new animal welfare manifesto has been welcomed and praised by all according to press reports and its content  makes gratifying reading, but unfortunately most of it has been visited before and has never been implemented so what chance now. One of the main proposals is to introduce an Animal Welfare Commissioner. This is not a new concept and many countries have implemented a commissioner, minister or Ombudsman for many years. We continue to lag behind as always. I have been arguing that England should have one and have written on the subject before.

There has been debate for several years on whether it is time for the UK to have some form of official legal representative or watchdog solely responsible for representing the rights and welfare interests of animals. Noel Sweeney, a Barrister and well-known advocate of animal rights has lectured and written about the need for an animals’ ombudswoman for a decade. He has suggested that such a person could represent all animals in Court and Parliament where any action affects their welfare and future and meet with the Law Commission to introduce a new Act with the paramount principle of granting animals a legal personality.

Furniture counts higher than living animals.

It is strange that we haven’t had such a person years ago particulalry as we have an ombudsman for virtually everything else including various industries and state organisations like communications, energy, finance, the motor industry, health, housing and even ones for the removal trade, estate agents and the furniture industry. Obviously bits of furniture count higher than living animals, but there is nothing for the pet trade industry which appears surprising particularly as it brings over £7 billion to the UK economy.

We can complain to our heart’s content when we feel we have been hard done by, but animals literally cannot voice their concerns and complaints and even if they could there is no ombudsman representing them. As owners or keepers of animals we cannot put their case for them either.

A case of maintaining standards or championing their rights and interests?

The role of the Animal Welfare Commissioner is to ensure:

“that animal welfare standards are always considered as legislation is introduced and as Britain takes part in international bodies, trade deals and obligations”

and also

“responsible for gathering the latest scientific evidence on animal sentience and animal welfare” and “work alongside Government to assist in the promotion of best practice in animal welfare internationally”.

Of course, maintaining “animal welfare standards” is a far cry from taking into account the rights and interests of animals which is not mentioned.

Many people feel it is a silly idea and taking things a bit far, but we have already taken a step towards this by establishing ‘independent’ Committees such as the Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) and the National Companion Animal Focus Group (NCAFG) who supposedly safeguard animals’ interests.

Impossible to be independent

The main problem is whether such a person would be allowed to remain independent on many of the issues presented to them, particularly those that effect human interest as we all know that human precedence is the creed when it comes to laws protecting animals. When any new policy, regulation, law or amendment to an existing law is considered by the Government all the vested interests that it might affect have their say in lessening the impact it might have on their livelihood or on what is called ‘legitimate human interests’. Governments consult with all these different interest groups such as agriculture, commerce, industry and science and consider their objections and suggestions.

But when the policy, law or issue affects the rights and well-being of animals, such as in the case of culling protected badgers, there is no one to speak up for them. Animal charities and campaigners can put their points forward, but there is never a truly impartial person to speak up for them with the power to investigate and research all the evidence and decide on the validity of any proposed actions. An animal’s commissioner or ombudsman or woman could do this.

What about a actual Minister for animal welfare?

Although the UK has a Minister for almost every area of commerce and industry including a Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which covers mainly livestock issues, there is no specific Government office whose sole purpose is to look out for the interests of animals, so it could be argued that we also need a Minister for ‘animal affairs’ who could intervene in issues that might affect large numbers of animals.

Dog in kennel, sad dog
Can any Government official ever be truly independent and stand up for their welfare and rights.

Many countries, cities and industries already have them.

Australia has shown some interest in the concept and there was a petition at one stage and Austria is one of the few countries which actually has an Animal Welfare Spokesman and an animals ombudsman service following a referendum there. Each State elects an independent, non-governmental representative and although not a perfect system it is pioneering in its intentions and beyond anything most counties have.

The City of Lisbon in Portugal appointed a ombudswoman for animal welfare in January 2018 who was reported to have “made fast work of getting stuck into her job” by immediately announcing a plan to solve the overcrowding in the city’s dog pounds and making an appeal in Parliament for the country’s policymakers to create laws that “better meet the needs of animals”. At her swearing in ceremony she stated, “I want to seize this opportunity to reach out to the population and raise awareness of the issue of animal welfare.”

Back in 2014 the DPZ German Primate Centre in Göttingen, which houses 1300 research primates, appointed an “outsider” ombudswoman which the 43 animal keepers can go to with any welfare concerns instead of the in-house animal welfare officer and welfare committee. The fact that she is a scientist makes it debatable how impartial she is, but it shows that industry, science and governments are not averse to the idea of ombudsman or women.

Who could fulfil such a role and be truly independent?

It is definitely time for this nation of animal lovers to have an ombudsman or woman or commissioner, whichever you want to call the role, but we want a person with the power to consider and argue the rights and interests of the animals on their behalf and the legal power to defend this right in court or parliament if necessary otherwise the role has little meaning. Animals need an independent legal representative and a spokesperson with the ear of the Government to investigate suspect decisions, conflicts of interest and policies on the well-being of animals and if necessary instigate prosecutions of any institution that by its actions cause unnecessary suffering.

But any person who takes on the role must have the interests and rights of the animals as their first priority and will need to be able to withstand all the lobbying and economic considerations which presently impeded animals getting a fair deal. It is doubtful such a person would be considered as it is odds on we would end up with a scientist, a barrister, a politician, a businessman or an academic who will toe the line. Lets hope not.