Another clueless pet owner

Social, economic and environmental issues in our ever-changing world.

Another clueless pet owner

Postby Gone_Fishin » Feb 8th, 2018, 6:29 am

When are these people going to smarten up and look after their pets? Allowing that poor cat to wander the streets and expecting that something bad won't happen to it is a definite sign of a terrible pet owner. Cars, coyotes, bobcats, any number of hazards await cats that are kicked outside and left to roam. IMO, people like this should not be allowed to have pets, period!

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... -hold-trap
Ecclesiastes 10:2 "A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left."
Get a high school drama teacher to run a country, and what do you get? High school drama.

11 people like this post.
User avatar
Gone_Fishin
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4475
Likes: 5348 posts
Liked in: 3710 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 6:43 am

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby oneh2obabe » Feb 8th, 2018, 6:44 am

When are idiots going to learn not to set leg traps? As for the pet owner, unless you know her personally I'd rethink what you're saying.
Dance as if no one's watching, sing as if no one's listening, and live everyday as if it were your last.

Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.

3 people like this post.
User avatar
oneh2obabe
feistres Goruchaf y Bwrdd
 
Posts: 57262
Likes: 792 posts
Liked in: 6180 posts
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2007, 8:19 am

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby Buckeye19 » Feb 8th, 2018, 6:54 am

If pet owners would start taking responsibility for their animals, incidents like this wouldn't happen. Why is it that some people are so irresponsible and careless and then act shocked when something happens to their pet?

Shame on them.

5 people like this post.
Buckeye19
Board Meister
 
Posts: 353
Likes: 348 posts
Liked in: 389 posts
Joined: Jul 19th, 2007, 3:33 pm

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby youjustcomplain » Feb 8th, 2018, 7:51 am

Buckeye19 wrote:If pet owners would start taking responsibility for their animals, incidents like this wouldn't happen. Why is it that some people are so irresponsible and careless and then act shocked when something happens to their pet?

Shame on them.


Are you serious? This is the pet owners fault that someone set a trap designed to kill or maim animals? What if a child stepped in the trap? I guess it would be bad parenting?

Stop shaming and judging people for letting their pets out of their sight.

4 people like this post.
youjustcomplain
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 780
Likes: 212 posts
Liked in: 479 posts
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 11:56 am

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby W105 » Feb 8th, 2018, 8:00 am

if anything, this just proves that one should keep their kitties safe inside...you gotta be a real sicko to put out traps like this..

4 people like this post.
W105
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3620
Likes: 1347 posts
Liked in: 3333 posts
Joined: Apr 20th, 2012, 7:46 am

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby Fancy » Feb 8th, 2018, 8:06 am

Not a sicko if there is a licence for the trap.

Every year there are news releases regarding pets getting caught in traps.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat

Buckeye19 likes this post.
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 46393
Likes: 1186 posts
Liked in: 6378 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby youjustcomplain » Feb 8th, 2018, 8:43 am

Fancy wrote:Not a sicko if there is a licence for the trap.

Every year there are news releases regarding pets getting caught in traps.


I could get a licence for a rifle. If I fired it at animals with the intent to main or kill while having no intention of harvesting, I'd say I was sick in the head.

Setting the leg trap is an attempt to kill or main an unsuspecting animal. These should not be legal and people who use them should stop. For me, it's no different than the idiots who put poison in timbits and leave them laying around dog parks. There is clear intent to harm the animals.

3 people like this post.
youjustcomplain
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 780
Likes: 212 posts
Liked in: 479 posts
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 11:56 am

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby Fancy » Feb 8th, 2018, 8:49 am

youjustcomplain wrote:I could get a licence for a rifle. If I fired it at animals with the intent to main or kill while having no intention of harvesting, I'd say I was sick in the head.

Setting the leg trap is an attempt to kill or main an unsuspecting animal. These should not be legal and people who use them should stop. For me, it's no different than the idiots who put poison in timbits and leave them laying around dog parks. There is clear intent to harm the animals.

Getting a licence for a rifle has no bearing on this situation.
In B.C., leg-hold traps can be placed within city limits by a licensed trapper, as long are they are not within 200 metres of a home. These traps are generally used to catch “nuisance animals,” like raccoons or rats.

“They can be put on private property, Crown land, public land, as long as it's a licensed trapper, who holds a valid licence,” said Nelson. “As well, land owners can place traps on their own property for so-called nuisance wildlife.”

Regardless of opinions - it is possible these traps were placed legally. If not, then hopefully the person(s) responsible are caught and prosecuted. Animals also get caught in traplines (also legal) and that has been in the news enough to make pet owners cautious.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 46393
Likes: 1186 posts
Liked in: 6378 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby trapp » Feb 8th, 2018, 8:51 am

Several things come to mind here. First the story by Castanet relative to what trappers can do and can not do is skewed by remarks from a radical animal rights group from Vancouver. Foot hold traps are not permitted for trapping racoon or rats. The regulations are quite clear about private property trapping. There is no Licensed Trapper or Conservation Officer in the Okanagan that would use foot hold traps within city limits to control nuisance wildlife. Permits issued to private land owners would not allow for use of foothold traps. Our mandatory Trappers Educations Courses to obtain a trappers license teach trappers not to use foot hold traps anywhere in the city.

By the nature of this incident this trap was illegally set by a non trapper. If that person is found they should be charged accordingly.

The per owner needs to take responsibility for having their pet run at large. For whatever reason the City of Kelowna thinks it's OK for cats to run at large killing songbirds and using the neighbors garden and flower beds as a toilet.

Both sides are equally to blame in this incident.
"It's what you learn after you know it all that really counts."

8 people like this post.
User avatar
trapp
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 972
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 333 posts
Joined: May 13th, 2007, 6:16 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby normaM » Feb 8th, 2018, 8:53 am

Trap was most likely set my someone tired of "pets" wandering onto their property. The traps should be illegal.
But although I can here the hissing from here people ought not their fur babies roam free.
Only see one cat here now.. guessing they were some other creatures dinner.
Don't think yourself as an ugly person... Think of yourself as a beautiful monkey
User avatar
normaM
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16786
Likes: 5290 posts
Liked in: 3564 posts
Joined: Sep 18th, 2007, 6:28 am

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby Jhunter199 » Feb 8th, 2018, 8:55 am

"Trapping Near A Dwelling Or On Private Property
It is an offense to trap within 200 m of a dwelling, unless you use:
If trapping on land, a live box trap or egg trap"

Yes live traps and egg traps are permitted within city limits as long as not within 200m of a residence unless permission is given, but leg holds and snares are not allowed.
Jhunter199
Fledgling
 
Posts: 293
Likes: 260 posts
Liked in: 351 posts
Joined: Apr 18th, 2013, 9:11 pm

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby Fancy » Feb 8th, 2018, 8:58 am

I should have researched myself instead of quoting from the news item. Thanks trapp for providing the correct information.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/sport ... apping.pdf
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 46393
Likes: 1186 posts
Liked in: 6378 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby GordonH » Feb 8th, 2018, 9:02 am

Fancy wrote:Not a sicko if there is a licence for the trap.

Every year there are news releases regarding pets getting caught in traps.


Someone can actual get a license the use of leg hold traps within city limits... Wow, if so something needs to change on this one.
When you have to start compromising yourself and your morals for the people around you, it’s probably time to change the people around you.

4 people like this post.
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 21350
Likes: 2430 posts
Liked in: 7749 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 6:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby mexi cali » Feb 8th, 2018, 9:02 am

Two parts too this; one, people really need to keep their cats under control so they aren't roaming freely. There are far too many things that can happen, not to mention the messes left in gardens and noise in the case of the Toms.

I have never understood the mentaility of people who purchase or otherwise go to the effort of acquiring a cat only to let it roam freely, exposed to danger.

They are the only "pet" that I know of where people seem OK with allowing them to roam. That they are "hunters" is a given but so too are many types of dogs yet most people don't allow their dogs to roam. Lizards too are hunters yet when people purchase a lizard as a pet, they don't shave three inches off the bottom their outside doors to allow the critter to hunt.

You buy a bird, it stays indoors. You buy a ferret, inside. Rabbit. Inside. And on and on.

Part two; the trap. Fancy is correct. The trap may have been perfectly legal as stated in the article. That however doesn't make it right. Based on the area where the cats owner lives, my assumption is that the trap was likely set for cats who are deemed a nuisance. There may be rats there. There may even be the odd raccoon but I think the purpose of the trap was to take care of roaming cats because there is no shortage of them.

However, it is still shocking too me that such a barbaric device could be legally used anywhere near civilization. Nuisance cats can be deterred using humane traps. As can raccoons. Even rats need not be tortured.

It seems very sadisitic and inhumane too me.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition

2 people like this post.
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
 
Posts: 5641
Likes: 2467 posts
Liked in: 3680 posts
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 1:48 pm

Re: Another clueless pet owner

Postby Fancy » Feb 8th, 2018, 9:06 am

Bears repeating:

trapp wrote:Foot hold traps are not permitted for trapping racoon or rats. The regulations are quite clear about private property trapping. There is no Licensed Trapper or Conservation Officer in the Okanagan that would use foot hold traps within city limits to control nuisance wildlife. Permits issued to private land owners would not allow for use of foothold traps.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat

Poindexter likes this post.
User avatar
Fancy
Grand Pilgrim
 
Posts: 46393
Likes: 1186 posts
Liked in: 6378 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Next

Return to Social Concerns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest