The case centres on whether cat owners, like dog owners, are liable for the consequences of their free-roaming pet’s behaviour. Jan Hooimeijer advocates enforcement of existing legislation and greater attention to the impact of free-roaming cats on animal welfare and protected wildlife.
Court case in Groningen brought by Stichting Huiskat/Thuiskat against a cat owner
Today, Stichting Huiskat/Thuiskat brought legal proceedings against a cat owner who posted photographs of a dead weasel and admitted that their cat had killed it.
Weasels are protected mammals, which means the cat owner has broken the law. The situation is comparable to a dog owner breaking the law if their dog kills a deer or sheep. This is an appeal, as the judge in the original proceedings found no grounds to prosecute or fine the cat owner.
The case centres on the principle that dog owners are responsible for the consequences of their dogs’ behaviour, and that the same principle should apply equally, and as a matter of law, to cat owners.
Judges and cat owners alike agree that dogs should not be allowed to roam freely and unsupervised, kill wildlife or foul a neighbour’s garden.
Any suggestion that cat owners are not responsible for the consequences of their own actions, or for their cats’ behaviour, is legally untenable and, in every respect, absurd.
By coincidence, this morning in Meppel I gave a copy of the booklet ‘The Taboo of the Free-Roaming Cat’ to a volunteer from a DierenLot animal ambulance. The conversation that followed was once again highly revealing.
She responded that she also lets her cat roam freely...
When I mentioned the tens of millions of protected wild animals killed by cats, she replied that ‘farmers are the main reason bird populations are declining, because they spray pesticides and so on’. She completely disregarded the 40–60 million wild animals killed by cats.
I explained that when a cat is killed by a car, both the cat and the driver are victims of the owner’s failure to care for the animal. I argued that the cat owner, not the driver, is ultimately responsible for the cat’s death. In response, the animal ambulance volunteer called me a cat hater.
For a veterinarian who advocates for the interests, rights, welfare and health of animals, including cats, to be branded a cat hater by a DierenLot animal ambulance volunteer is both telling and deeply ironic.
The animal ambulance volunteer said that she had no interest in the booklet ‘The Taboo of the Free-Roaming Cat’. She will simply carry on removing cats killed by cars from the road, taking injured cats to veterinarians and bringing stray cats to animal shelters.
She claims to stand up for cats, yet does not challenge those responsible for their suffering, and above all, refuses to examine her own role. It is contradictory to advocate for animals while at the same time helping to sustain a situation in which they suffer because of cat owners’ behaviour. As a result, both cats and protected wildlife are also affected by the attitude of this animal ambulance volunteer.
This encounter once again shows that the issue of free-roaming cats goes far beyond being merely taboo. Otherwise reasonable people suddenly become unwilling to listen to reason. The subject fuels polarisation and can even provoke aggression and hostility towards those who advocate for cats’ interests, rights, welfare and health.
It is time for the courts to do what is expected of them: apply the law. They must stop upholding an unacceptable policy of tolerance.
To date, breaches of the law and the interests, rights, welfare and health of animals, including cats, have been disregarded because the perceived ‘interests’ of cat owners have taken precedence.
