Who 'owns' a domestic cat? Or does anyone?

There are countless examples of cat caregivers losing their cat because he/she has gone walkabout and disappeared only to have ended up in a new home not far away after being rescued by an animal lover with whom the lost cat lives contentedly for a long time until the 'original owner' discovers the new arrangement and complains; demanding the return of their cat and even employing a lawyer to threaten legal proceedings.

The cat is the innocent victim in a human dispute; having no knowledge of legal ownership. In this familiar story, the microchip embedded in the cat's neck if it exists is not evidence of ownership. Perhaps it is evidence of 'possession' no more.

Does a person who rescues and cares for a once 'owned' cat become legally entitled to claim ownership? The law is vague on this because if we are honest domestic cats are not really 'owned' like an inanimate 'chattel' such as a table and chairs or a television.

The concept of legal ownership does not really fit the the cat caregiving scenario. And the phrase 'cat caregiving' gives the game away. So called owners are in truth caregivers. The cat agrees to live with a caregiver in a mutually agreeable social contract. He gets fed and cared for and in return he provides companionship to the human caregiver.

There is not much more to it. To get into a tangle about ownership as happened in France recently with Pompon being rescued and cared for for 24 months and the 'true owner' trying to reclaim her cat named 'Flocon' is inappropriate I feel [see story below].

The cat decides who she/he is 'owned' by. If she is happy in her new home and is being cared for well - as is the case in the French story - she stays there. The former owner should be gracious enough to let their cat go. After all, in the French case Pompon had been missing for 2 years. That's enough to break the claim for ownership.

It is actually worse than that because the former owner claims that her cat was stolen. That is not uncommon either. It is wrong though. Cats can't trespass and cats can't be truly owned. In the case of cat rescue it is inappropriate to allege theft by the rescuer unless malicious intent can be firmly established.

The only time theft can be cited is when professional thieves steal a cat from the street for resale.

In disputes like this the answer is mediation to come to an agreeable solution with the welfare of the cat firmly in mind. A cat rescued 24 months ago and settled in a new home should remain in that home. And if a cat wanders from a home it might indicate lack of good caregiving. Another reason for the rescuer to be allowed to take possession.

The French cat story:

In the village of Augicourt in eastern France, a domestic cat has become the subject of a legal dispute between two women, each claiming ownership. Aimée Raclot says she found the animal, which she named Pompon, abandoned and in poor health in her barn. She paid for veterinary treatment and later had the cat microchipped in her own name. A neighbour, however, insists the cat is hers, called Flocon, and supports her claim with earlier veterinary records. She has filed a complaint alleging theft, prompting police involvement and legal proceedings. The case is now heading towards mediation. At its core, the dispute raises a familiar legal tension between possession and care on the one hand, and prior ownership on the other. While Raclot emphasises the rescue and welfare of the cat, the neighbour maintains that original ownership should prevail. The outcome will depend on how the competing evidence is assessed under French law.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Brazilian Courts Gain Power to Order Shared Custody of Pets in Divorce

Brazil has taken a significant step in recognising the emotional importance of companion animals by granting courts the authority to order shared custody of pets when couples separate. The new federal law, approved in April 2026, responds to a growing number of disputes involving dogs, cats, and other domestic animals—now considered integral members of many Brazilian households.

Under the legislation, if a divorcing couple cannot reach an agreement on who keeps the pet, a judge may impose a joint‑custody arrangement. This can include alternating periods of care, shared financial responsibility for food, veterinary treatment, and other essential expenses, and even detailed schedules similar to those used in child‑custody cases.

Crucially, the law requires judges to consider the well‑being of the animal, assessing factors such as living conditions, time availability, and each partner’s caregiving history. Pets that have lived predominantly with the couple are treated as a form of shared property, but the law moves beyond a purely economic view by acknowledging their emotional significance.

There are important safeguards. Shared custody is prohibited if one partner has a criminal record or a history—or risk—of domestic violence. In such cases, courts may award exclusive custody to the safer environment to protect both the animal and the vulnerable partner.

Brazil is home to one of the world’s largest pet populations—estimated at more than 160 million animals—and lawmakers say the reform reflects modern family dynamics. With many couples choosing not to have children, pets often occupy a central emotional role, making separation disputes more complex.

By aligning itself with countries such as France and Spain, where pets are legally recognised as sentient beings, Brazil signals a broader cultural shift: animals are no longer viewed as mere possessions but as companions whose welfare deserves legal protection.

----

P.S. Sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Cubans leave their pets behind as they migrate in record numbers

The video gives a good insight into what is going on in Cuba regarding pet abandonment when their owners migrate to Florida, USA. It seems that a lot of them leave their pets behind and they do this perhaps not because of carelessness but because it costs too much to take them with them. 

Transporting an animal from Havana to Miami through a specialised agency can cost up to US$1200 including medical examinations and the flight. And since September, pet owners have had to pay an additional US$1300 to comply with a legal obligation of quarantine.

The average monthly salary in the state sector in Cuba is about $21. A tiny salary by American standards. And it appears that looking after a companion animal in Cuba is pretty well untenable financially because a 20 kg bag of imported dog food can cost up to $70 and a visit to the vet about $10.

The migration exodus from Cuba to America and other countries is apparently enormous. The gross domestic product in Cuba fell by 2% in 2023 and there is rampant inflation. There are food and fuel shortages. No surprise, then, that Cubans want to get out of the country and are forced to leave their pets behind.

This leaves a very large burden upon animal rescue organisations within Cuba. They do have animal welfare laws in Cuba and a degree of animal welfare activism which took shape in 2018 it appears because the Internet was widely accessible at that time.

The animal rights activists encouraged the government to pass a long-awaited animal welfare law which is nice to see but animal welfare campaigners say that it is not enough. One of these people believe that animal abandonment is "the worst form of animal abuse". I believe that there is poor enforcement of these laws making them ineffective.

And, as you know, he says that "the increase in migration has resulted in more pets being abandoned". And there has been a "loss of values" in Cuba because of the deepening economic crisis.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Donald Trump's Truth Social website publishes funny cat pics which are NOT funny

OPINION: This is a cross-post. In the other post [link] I explained that Donald Trump, in my view, is trying to defuse his near-fatal faux pas when he dived into making strong and unpleasant allegations about Haitian migrants in Springfield Ohio eating ducks, pet cats and pet dogs. He did this on mainstream television during the debate with Kamala Harris. He is a poor decision-maker and he knows he's made a big mistake and has been trying to roll back from that faux pas ever since to recover some losses to his campaign.

Image: DALLE as commissioned by Truth Social workers.

And with this goal in mind, he has, in my view, published some funny cat pictures which are decidedly unfunny on his Truth Social website, which, as you may know, is a substitute to X/Twitter from which he was banned at one time but he has now been reinstated by Elon Musk.

Image: DALLE as commissioned by Truth Social workers. This unfunny cat pic is a reference to Trump's allegation that he is strong on immigration while Harris is weak. And that migrants eat pet cats! Really, Trump is far to extreme and he is destabilising.

The pictures are, as you might imagine, generated by AI which cannot spell properly and often rights gobbledygook. But in the first picture it is claimed that Kamala Harris hates cats. It's actually the complete opposite. She has a very long and impressive track record both personally and professionally as a politician of supporting animal welfare both in respect of domestic and wild animals.

You can read about some of her actions by clicking on this link. In contrast, Donald Trump has a sketchy or arguably a very poor record of animal welfare. He has undermined conservation efforts in America regarding wolves and bears for example. He never had a companion animal in the White House which is the first instance for a hundred years.

His sons like to sport hunt Africa. Although to be fair Donald Trump doesn't like trophy hunting. But he did nothing about it when president. In fact he undermined the conservation and protection of iconic animals in Africa because she allowed the importation of trophies into America.

I have written many articles about Trump's failures in animal welfare. Click here to see the articles.

It's quite clear to me and I suspect to others that Donald Trump is not really interested in animal welfare. He is far more interested in making money and he's good with the economy which is important but the American economy should be expanded while respecting animal welfare in terms of wild animal conservation and protections for domestic animals. You can achieve both at the same time but Donald Trump likes to ride roughshod over the landscape, nature, and while animal welfare in driving economic growth.

Kamala Harris has demonstrated the complete opposite it seems to me. She is a tender-hearted woman and has been described as an animal champion. Trump supporters would probably argue that she is not strong on immigration or the economy but I think you have to give her a chance to demonstrate her strengths in these areas.

If you are to deal with illegal immigration in America humanely it becomes very difficult to deal with illegal immigration! The same problems exist in the UK and in continental Europe, specifically Germany. It's a very difficult problem, dealing with illegal immigration but you have to deal with it humanely.

Trump does not really want to deal with it humanely. I think we have to ask ourselves whether we would do the same thing as illegal immigrants if we were in their position. I certainly would. I would look for a better life. And if you can make it work by simply walking into America then you do it. It's one world. We are all in it together.

To return to the pictures. The picture of the ginger tabby holding up the Kamala Harris placard is misleading. It's entirely misleading. It's a lie! But then, Donald Trump is very good at lying isn't he?

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Finland's new Animal Welfare Act prohibits unspayed female cats roaming freely outdoors

Finland has introduced a new Animal Welfare Act which deals with a number of problematic areas including what the Finnish call 'population cats' aka community cats or stray cats or feral cats. Here are some details about this new law...See below image for details.

The new Animal Welfare Act in Finland introduced measures to prevent uncontrolled reproduction, especially in cats. The law emphasizes that the reproduction of mammals, including cats, must be controlled by their owners. This means that letting unspayed female cats roam freely outdoors is not permitted, as it risks unregulated breeding and contributes to the feral cat population. The new rules aim to tackle the issue of abandoned and stray cats, which is a significant problem in Finland​.

In addition, there are strict regulations requiring cat owners to supervise their pets to prevent them from wandering freely. Cats left unsupervised outside of their owner’s property can be considered abandoned, which is against Finnish law​.

Further, Finland's new Animal Welfare Act, which came into force in 2024, represents a significant update to the country's approach to general animal protection. This comprehensive legislation strengthens protections for various animals, from pets to farm animals, and introduces several new measures aimed at improving their welfare.

Key Features of the Act:

1. Breeding and Pets: The Act includes strict rules on breeding, particularly for pets. It prohibits breeding practices likely to produce offspring with serious health issues or those that would cause harm to the animals. For instance, animals with hereditary defects that impair their well-being can no longer be bred.

2. Restrictions on Animal Use: The use of wild animals in circuses and traveling exhibitions is now banned. This includes prohibitions on keeping animals like sea lions in circuses, effectively ending the practice in Finland.

3. Care Requirements: The Act mandates that all mammals and birds should have continuous access to drinking water, although certain exceptions are allowed for species like reindeer and sled dogs under specific conditions. The law also imposes stricter requirements on the care of pets, ensuring they have proper opportunities for physical exercise, rest, and social interactions.

4. Ban on Certain Practices: The sale and use of electric and spiked collars have been banned, although electric cattle prods for farm animals are still allowed. Additionally, cosmetic surgeries like ear cropping and tail docking for dogs are prohibited.

5. Farm Animal Protections: The construction of new tie stalls for cattle has been banned, though existing ones can still be used. There are also enhanced requirements for the outdoor exercise of dairy cows, extending the mandatory walking period.

6. Fur Farming: Despite public pressure, fur farming was not banned, but the Act did not introduce new restrictions on this practice. This remains a controversial issue, with many advocating for a complete ban.

While the new Act introduces significant improvements, it has faced criticism for not going far enough in some areas, such as fur farming and the long transitional periods for certain practices. Nonetheless, it is a step forward in enhancing animal welfare standards in Finland.

--------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

You'll need 2 documents to provide for your cat on your passing

If you live in the UK - and I would suggest most other Western countries - and you want to ensure that your cat companion is looked after on your passing, you should employ two documents namely a letter of wishes and your will.

You can't leave money to your cat in your will because cats are not considered to be sentient beings under British law. They are objects, inanimate objects, and therefore cannot receive money in your will.

But you can leave your pet cat and money to somebody you trust in your will after you've spoken to them about their "duties" when you've gone.

And when you've got their agreement you can provide guidelines about their caregiving of your cat in a letter of wishes, which accompanies the will in an envelope. Both should be drafted by a solicitor or some other qualified person to make sure that they are legal.

Note: this is a cross-post. See the other post by clicking here.

Use a will together with a letter of wishes to make provision for your cat on your passing by Michael Broad

-------------

And it's important you don't leave too much money (whatever that actually is 😎) to the person who has been selected to look after your cat because it might be challenged by other beneficiaries. This might result in a court case and a judge possibly rewriting the will which you obviously want to avoid at all costs.

But the key point here is that there are two documents as mentioned in order to ensure that your cat is well cared for on your passing because of a weakness really in British law. 

It's time for British law to change to recognise cat companions and dog companions as sentient beings because they are regarded as sentient beings and members of the family by their caregivers.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

My boyfriend said he'd save our cat but not a stranger if both were drowning

The title to this post comes from The New York Times. I can't access the paper because they are now insisting on paying subscriptions but I can guess what it's about as I am sure you can.

The title intrigues me. I like it because it very strongly points to the boyfriend regarding animals as equals to humans. Through his behaviour the boyfriend is granting animals near human rights.

Man saves drowning cat. Extraordinary image create by AI to my order. I asked the computer to create an image of a man saving a drowning cat. The AI computer created Superman and a large clapping crowd 👍😉😎.

It is an attitude which is very much in line with the modern-day thinking of many people. But also, there are many people who would think that he is totally crazy. There are still many people who think that humans have dominion over animals as per the bible. 

They believe that humans can use animals as they wish and that animals are there to serve people in any way necessary including providing food for humans.

But the tide is turning thanks probably because of the Internet providing lots of information about the sentience of animals. Providing information about the emotions that animals deal. And providing information about the fact that some animal species are self-aware which means they understand who they are and place rather than acting instinctively without knowledge of their presence. 

RELATED: Scientists propose that we should regard animals in general as conscious beings.

But there's nothing wrong with the boyfriend's attitude. The problem probably would come if he actually had to make a real-life choice between saving the family cat who was drowning rather than a stranger who was drowning at the same time and in the same place.

You can imagine the scenario. A cat and a human are drowning in a lake. A man Johnson dives in and saves the cat but leaves the man to drown. I think he would be in big trouble. He might even be charged with criminal behaviour.

In reality, it is probable that the scenario would never arrive and if it did he could save both. And also, if it did happen, the cat wouldn't drown because cats are great swimmers. Cats are better swimmers than people normally and therefore you would tend to save the man first and then the cat secondly if the cat required it.

The boyfriend's enlightened (for me 🤔💕) attitude is in advance of the general attitude of humankind in general as the world is still developing and becoming more civilised. When the world is truly civilised perhaps in many thousands of years time (if ever) we will treat humans and animals in the same way.

There are instances in some advanced developed countries were cats and animals do have considerable rights. In the UK the Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides certain rights to animals at the outset under the law. Break the law and you are a criminal if successfully prosecuted.

In the Spanish family courts, animals are treated a bit like children in divorce proceedings. The court must look at the parties' abilities to look after the animal and consider the animal's welfare. These are the basic rules concerning caring for a child. In other words, animals are treated as sentient beings in divorce proceedings with some important rights.

What do you think about the boyfriend's attitude?

---------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

British government seriously underestimated the number of XL bullies

News media today report that there are seven times more XL bully dogs in the UK than the government thought which has seriously undermined the government's new law that XL bully dogs need to be registered and some strict rules complied with if they are to be kept.

Because many XL bully dog owners don't want to register their dog or comply with these laws designed to protect the public they are abandoning them sometimes at shelters and sometimes simply abandoning them in public places.

And as there were so many more XL bully dogs in the country than estimated, rescue centres are struggling to deal with the massive influx. Welfare charities are overwhelmed as they try to cope with the fallout from the ban on this breed.

The UK's Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) believed before the new legislation came into force that there were 10,000 XL bully dogs in England and Wales.

Now that registration is necessary they are able to accurately know the number which is around 55,000 because 55,000 dogs have been registered for an exemption certificate.

However, a further 15,000 to 20,000 dogs are thought to be unregistered and so they are on the streets illegally.

That means that there are around 70,000 XL bully dogs in the country which is seven times more than the 10,000 that the government believed was the case.

This is a UK government screwup essentially. Another one in the eyes of detractors of the present UK government.

Animal welfare charities say that the government's failure in this respect when planning legislation to ban the dog is now causing huge problems.

The Association of Dogs and Cats Homes said that the sharp rise in the number of XL bully dogs abandoned to their shelters or confiscated under the law means that all the rescue centres in Britain's biggest cities are full.

A trustee of the charity, David Bowles, said: "I think we are also getting to a stage where the police kennels and local authority shelters or pounds are also at capacity so there is no other space left. I don't think the government worked this through. They hugely underestimated the spaces they needed. It's a real worry now as to where the dogs are going to be housed."

The charity has 166 rescue centres in the UK.

This has resulted in some XL bully dog owners being unable to find somewhere to surrender their pets and they are abandoning them on the streets which can obviously pose a danger to the public.

In addition, veterinary charities are also saying that they are getting overwhelmed with requests to castrate XL bully dogs (sterilise or neuter) which is a requirement under the new laws in order to keep the animal.

Under the legislation XL bullies that were more than one year old when the ban came into force must be neutered by the end of June this year. Defra needs to receive confirmation that the animal has been neutered. If they don't the owner's certificate of exemption becomes invalid which means the owner is at risk of a criminal record.

Dermot Murphy of the RSPCA said:

"We remain strongly opposed to breed specific legislation and instead want to see the government commit to improving and enforcing the current breeding and dog control regulations and to promote responsible dog ownership."

Defra said: "We are continuing to engage closely with veterinary, rescue and rehoming organisations to monitor the impact of the XL bully ban."

There are arguments that breed specific banning of dogs is unfair and bad thinking. That's because problems with dogs being aggressive is about the individual dog and not a breed. In fact, the founder of the XL bully dog breed, an American, says that the breed should be amiable and friendly. They were not originally created to be aggressive. 

The problem comes from people who make the dog aggressive by giving them steroids and training them to attack people. As usual, it is a human problem not a dog problem and unfortunately also as usual it is the dog or the animal that suffers. Many XL bully dogs have been put down as a result of this law.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Free micro-chipping by Blue Cross across the UK

In preparation for a new UK law which makes micro-chipping compulsory on June 10, 2024, the well-known charity, Blue Cross has decided to offer free micro-chipping across the UK after trialling an event at their Stratford House Centre in Marsh Barton.

Blue Cross microchipping a tabby cat.

If cat owners fail to microchip their cats by June 10 they may have to pay a £500 fine. Of course, they would have to be found out in order to be successfully prosecuted to pay that fine which I think is unlikely but the law is the law.

This is a first apparently for Blue Cross. They are offering the free service because they are aware of the cost of living crisis in the UK. This problem may have been heightened by the recent extensive news media coverage of rapidly increasing veterinarian prices because veterinary practices have been bought up by conglomerates whose priority would appear to be to increase profits rather than provide an excellent service.

After the trial Blue Cross hope to run the same free micro-chipping service across the UK. Alison Thomas, a veterinarian and head of veterinary standards at Blue Cross said: "As a charity, we are very aware of the impact of the cost of living on pet owners and that is why we are running this event. We aim to run these events over the country if this is successful and we have the resources to do so."

It's almost bound to be successful because the public will be very happy to receive free micro-chipping. Micro-chipping has been a successful process in many countries in many ways.

It allows cats to be reunited with their owners when they are lost. It allows veterinarians to assess who owns a lost cat or a stray cat. It can also help the authorities to assess whether a cat caregiver is providing satisfactory conditions for their cats. What I mean is you can trace the owner of an abused cat and successfully prosecute them if the authorities deem it fit to do so.

It should be noted, however, that a microchip is not complete and total evidence that the details on the microchip is the owner of the cat concerned. It is good evidence that those details provide the name of the owner but it is not conclusive evidence if there is other evidence which overrides it. This is because cats sometimes choose their own "owner" when they migrate from one home to another!

And if there are laws which make it obligatory to keep a cat indoors (this would be very rare but I believe there are certain jurisdictions in Australia where it occurs) you can then make it easier to enforce that law if the cats are micro-chipped. As I said there are benefits for micro-chipping beyond simply finding a lost cat and reuniting them.

Normally the cost of micro-chipping varies between about £10 and £30 in the UK but I'm sure the lower figure is out of date. I would expect it to cost more than that in some veterinary clinics today bearing in mind, as mentioned, the increased charges.

Blue Cross

Blue Cross is a registered animal welfare charity in the United Kingdom, founded in 1897. Their mission is to encourage kindness to animals, protect them, and educate the public about responsible pet ownership. Here are some key aspects of their work:

1. Veterinary Care: Blue Cross provides veterinary care for pets in need. Their hospitals and clinics offer essential medical services to animals.

2. Rehoming Services: The charity actively finds loving new homes for homeless pets. They work tirelessly to match pets with caring families.

3. Behavioural Help: Blue Cross offers expert behavioural advice to pet owners. Whether it’s training, socialization, or addressing behavioral issues, they assist in creating positive relationships between pets and their humans.

4. Pet Bereavement Support: Coping with the loss of a beloved pet can be incredibly challenging. Blue Cross provides a pet bereavement service to support those grieving the loss of their furry companions.

5. Education: The charity focuses on educating future generations about responsible pet ownership. By spreading awareness and knowledge, they aim to create a compassionate and informed community.

Through their efforts, Blue Cross helps thousands of pets and people every year. Whether it’s finding homes for animals, providing veterinary care, or offering emotional support during difficult times, they play a vital role in improving the lives of pets across the UK.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

How do I secure my pet in the car?

Securing your pet in the car is crucial for their safety, your safety, and it’s also a legal requirement. Here are some methods to ensure your pet is safely restrained during car travel:

• Pet Seat Belts: These can prevent your pet from moving around and causing distractions.
• Harnesses: A good harness can keep your pet secure while allowing some movement.
• Crates and Carriers: Ideal for smaller pets, these can be secured to the car to prevent movement.
• Boot/Luggage Guards: These are more for protecting passengers but won’t protect your pet in an accident.

It’s important to note that unlike human safety devices, pet safety products are not legally required to be crash-tested. However, some products have been certified by the Centre for Pet Safety, such as the SleepyPod Clickit Support Harness and the Gunner Kennel.

Cat in a harness attached to a seat belt anchor. Image: Zooplus.

Remember, at 30mph, an unrestrained 20kg dog can be thrown forward with a force equivalent to the weight of a small moose, posing a serious risk to everyone in the vehicle. Always ensure your pet is suitably restrained whenever you’re driving.

It is a legal requirement in the UK to restrain pets in a vehicle. According to the Highway Code, drivers must ensure that dogs and other animals are suitably restrained in a car. Failure to do so can be considered careless driving, which carries a fine of up to £5,000. Not properly restraining your pet can also invalidate your car insurance and pet insurance, and in the event of an accident, it could be counted as dangerous driving. Always make sure your pet is safely secured whenever you’re traveling with them in a vehicle.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Spanish court orders dog support payments by husband to wife on divorce

European country's laws (except UK) regard animals as sentient beings. In those countries where animals are treated as sentient beings under the law you have to make provision for the caretaking of a companion in a court order when you divorce if you can't agree. 

Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal among other European countries recognise animals under their laws as sentient beings. In the UK, companion animals such as dogs and cats are regarded as inanimate objects under the law which is a throwback to many years ago when they were regarded as "chattels" to use an old-fashioned word. It means objects, dead objects, owned by the divorcing couple.

Yes, in the UK dogs and cats are divided up like the television and furniture and if they can't agree then the court makes an order.

But in this story, from Spain, a court in Pontevedra ruled that the father i.e. the husband or former husband must pay €75 a month per child and €40 for the dog per month which represented "half of the extraordinary expenses [and] veterinary bills."

So you can see that in Spain, on divorce, if there is a dog or cat - a member of the family - and if the parties can't agree, a court will make an order for the dog or cat's caregiving in exactly the same way that the court would make an order for the children. It's great and it's a very good example of the power of regarding animals as sentient beings. It dramatically improves animal rights.

In this instance, the dog went to live with the wife which is why the husband has to make this payment to the wife to look after the family dog. It appears that they couldn't decide who the dog should live with so the court also made an order that the dog lives with the wife.

The order was made under the reform of the Animal Welfare Act in 2021. This law facilitates shared custody which hopefully can be arrived at by agreement but if not, as mentioned, the court steps in, makes an order and the order is enforced through subsequent court proceedings if required.

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Do cats have to be in a carrier in the car?

Your cat must be in a seatbelt harness or carrier when travelling in a car in the UK. In the USA each state has their own laws on restraining pets in the car but I suspect that all the states have similar laws.

I think the best way to restrain your cat inside a travelling vehicle for longish distances is to put them in a seatbelt harness. This is a harness that connects to the seatbelt as you might imagine! The picture shows how it works. For trips to the vet, the carrier is obviously more suitable.

Picture: Zooplus. It costs £8.

The reason why cats and dogs need to be restrained? Because in the UK there is a booklet called the Highway Code which provides all drivers with the rules of the road. It's quite a lengthy booklet and when a new driver takes their driving test in the UK they are tested on the Highway Code. If they fail the paperwork part of the driving test you failed the test.

And if you don't restrain your cat in your car when travelling the police can stop you (do they ever!?) And you could end up with a £5,000 fine in the worst case scenario which would be highly unlikely. In fact I think it would be infinitesimally unlikely but technically possible.

Rule 57

The rule which dictates that you must restrain your darling cat is rule 57 of the above-mentioned Highway Code. Or you might keep your cat in a carrier throughout the journey. There are other pet containers to restrain them when travelling in a car.

I mention that the best way to restrain a cat is through a seatbelt harness but the more typical way to do it would be to leave them in a carrier but the issue for me is that on a long journey you don't want to keep your cat in a carrier. The seatbelt harness would be better.

Or you might put them in the back behind a headrest cage. This is a mesh which attaches to the headrest on the back seat and keeps the dog or cat in the luggage area of the car. But I think people like to have their cat in the passenger compartment so they can talk to them and be involved with them (safely!).

Ireland

When I took my cats to Ireland about 25 years ago with my then wife I didn't give one single thought to rule 57 of the Highway Code. So my two cats were free to move around the car and my little lady cat spent most of the time sitting on a dashboard looking out the front window.

And we smuggled them on to an overnight ferry and then we hired a car in Ireland and drove to my mother-in-law on the west coast. Once again the cats were free to wander around the cabin. Although I don't know whether they have a Highway Code in Ireland. Not that it would have made any difference because as mentioned I totally ignored the Highway Code at that time.

Projectile

But if you want to abide by the law and be a good driver and a good cat caregiver you should restrain your cat. And there's a genuinely good reason for it because if you have an accident your cat or dog might become a missile thrown forwards. Both you and your cat might be harmed, possibly badly. So Rule 57 is common sense.

Peeing

Postscript: I have got to make one last point which is that sometimes cats are very nervous in a vehicle and being nervous they might urinate and if they urinate on your passenger seat and it sinks into the foam you are not going to get it out. Therefore I would strongly suggest that you put down some sort of absorbent or protective material on the seat where your cat is travelling. It will pay dividends.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Female cat lover campaigns to be a lawmaker in Indonesia

NEWS AND COMMENT: This is a story from the other side of the world for me but any story which reports that a person wants to be a lawmaker in their country's parliament who is a cat lover and probably an animal lover as well, will interest me deeply. 

That's because there is a need worldwide to improve animal welfare especially in the Far East (in my opinion) and as you probably know Jakarta is the capital of Indonesia. It is the economic, cultural and political centre of Indonesia.

The person in question is Indonesian Francine Widjojo. She has just hit the campaign trail carrying cat treats and cats I'm told by Reuters. She wants to raise awareness of animal cruelty during her campaigning.

Francine on the campaign trail. Image: Reuters.

Indonesia will hold presidential and legislative elections on February 14 and campaigning is now in full swing.

During her campaigning, Francine is seen holding Yakult, a white cat who she rescued as a kitten and who is one of 27 living in her home! I hope that she has a big home and some help!

Francine is 44 years old. She told Reuters last month while her cat was being vaccinated that if she is successful in her campaigning and is elected she wants to improve the sterilisation and vaccination rate of cat companions in Jakarta. She added that, "One of the issues that I will be fighting for is for Jakarta to be a pet-friendly city."

Regrettably, I have to report that in some parts of Indonesia people consume cat and dog meat which is not untypical in south-east Asia as a whole. 

From a Westerner's point of view it is unacceptable. China kills and consumes the most cats and dogs of all the countries in the world. Vietnam follows but South Korea has recently introduced a law which will ban dog meat as I recall.

Interestingly, the Indonesian government's agricultural ministry classified dog meat as not for human consumption in 2018 but it didn't have any impact on the trade. Note: it is difficult to stop deep rooted commercial enterprises and habits which might go back hundreds or more years. It requires great enforcement. In this instance, no punishment was created for eating dog meat and therefore the recommendation was unenforceable.

Animal activists are campaigning for a national ban on dog and cat meat trades according to The Humane Society International.

Francine is running for election under the umbrella of the Indonesian Solidarity Party which is headed by the president's youngest son. She also plans to fight against corruption, religious and racial intolerance.

She mentioned that animal cruelty is not often addressed in Indonesia but she vows to fight the problem. I wish her the very best. I love to read about people campaigning for animal welfare many thousands of miles away and committing to the fight to eradicate animal abuse.

---------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

No obligation for UK police to investigate dog killing cat

This is part of a "great debate". The GB News website has a story about a large dog described as a "copy of XL bully" killing a lady's cat. Her name is Becky and she is campaigning for a change in UK law. I am sorry but she won't succeed but I wish her all the best.

In the UK, the police do nothing about an attack by a dog on another dog or cat unless the dog is an assistance dog or service dog. Image: MikeB under Canva license.

She says that she has no recourse to prosecute the owners of the dog that killed her cat Freya because in the UK, only dog on dog attacks can be pursued by police and only in those instances where the victim is an assistance or service dog or if the dog's owner is injured and/or the attacking dog was dangerously out of control.

RELATED: read more on this tricky aspect of UK law by clicking on the following link: In the UK, if a dog injuries or kills your cat the police might not become involved.

The bottom line is that if a dog attacks a cat, the police won't do anything about it, I understand. That's law in the UK.

"There have been decisions in the past by courts and authorities to suggest that it is the nature of a dog to kill and wound small animals. As such, unfortunately there is no certainty that the police could take action, in the event of your pet being killed or wounded by a dog." - West Yorkshire Police

I had never heard of that before. It places assistance and service dogs above an ordinary dog companion. It's a type of speciesism if you like. And it would certainly be upsetting to a dog owner to have their dog killed by another without recourse in terms of criminal behaviour.

Although a prosecution wouldn't be possible, I would suggest that the owner of the victim dog could, if it was practical, sue the owner of the attacking dog in negligence for failing to take charge of their dog adequately and allowing the animal to attack their dog and kill him or her.

There will be very few people who would commence a civil action like that because the damages would almost certainly be small, perhaps to the value of the dog or cat without valuing the distress caused to the owner. In which case the damages might be as low as £100 or thereabouts.

If the owner of the victim dog employed a lawyer to help them the costs would far outweigh the damages awarded if they won. Therefore they would have to conduct the case themselves which would probably be a big barrier.

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

UK's new Pet Abduction law will not lead to old ladies feeding cats being prosecuted

There are many kind old ladies and men (for that matter) who are concerned about animal welfare who occasionally feed 'stray cats' and even adopt them. All perfectly normal. And sometimes a kindly old lady might live down the road from a cat owner whose cat likes to visit the old lady's home because she feeds him. And she might be feeding him better food than he receives at his home 😊.

Update: Christopher Wake, of South Croydon, London, writing to The Times said the following: "As a pet owner I acknowledge the emotional distress involved in the theft of family pets but new legislation is not required. The Theft Act 1968 allows for a five-year prison sentence, the same as in the proposed pet abduction bill. Unless the police investigate such crimes more thoroughly and judges are directed to impose stiffer prison sentences, this new legislation will achieve nothing that can't be achieved by present laws."

Comment: perhaps the government thinks that with a specific law concerned only with pet theft, judges and the police will take the matter more seriously and there will be more prosecutions and longer sentences?

Some people might see this as attempted theft 😕! It would be cruel to presume that an old lady is trying to entice a cat away from their owner. Although it might happen very rarely. But the problem here is that in the UK, a new law is being debated in the Houses of Parliament.

It is one specifically tailored to the theft of companion animals. The  existing Theft Act 1968 does not do justice to pet theft. Ordinary theft does not take into account the emotional distress caused to both companion animal and caregiver. It is this emotional distress element which distinguishes the theft of a companion animal from the theft of an inanimate object such as a laptop computer.

Currently they are treated exactly the same but it's time for change which is why the UK government supports the bill going through Parliament currently called the Pet Abduction Bill. Punishment will be tailored to the crime more accurately with a maximum five year prison sentence on conviction as I understand it.

But one Member of Parliament, Sir Edward Leigh, has raised the question about the workings of this Act after it has passed through Parliament. As I think it will be passed by the way because there's great support for it among Members of Parliament.

Sir Edward said that he remembers his mother's grandmother who was a great cat lady. She had 14 cats and every one of them she had adopted by feeding a stray cat as she saw it. Perhaps some of her cats were the property of her neighbours! Who knows. But Sir Edward saw a possible problem because under this proposed law (if it had been in place at the time) it might have resulted in her mother's grandmother being prosecuted and convicted for the crime of pet theft.

Apparently it won't but I can see a problem arising potentially at least. Anna Firth, the MP for Southend West who sponsored the bill said that it would not punish cases where there had not been malice or ill intent when looking after a cat.

This is about what is called mens rea which means intent. All crime requires an intent to commit that particular crime which is part of the prosecution process. There are two parts to it both the mental and the physical. So if an old lady is feeding a cat voluntarily because they want to help the cat but she has no intention of stealing the cat then she can't be prosecuted. 

That's common sense but it doesn't totally preclude the possibility that a charming and kindly old lady might have, on occasions, malicious intent to steal her neighbour's cat! A rare event but just about imaginable.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

British government minister explains in Parliament why her cats are so important to her

Screenshot from the video below.

I like this video as it adds a bit of humanity, gentleness and animal welfare into the House of Commons, which is often a raw place for debate. It is a lady Member of Parliament (MP) who does this by mentioning her two cats who've become so important to her as she alone after her husband died and her children left home.  

RELATED: UK government supports making cat and dog theft a specific crime.

The BBC video tells the story.  She is supporting the introduction into the law of England and Northern Ireland which would make pet theft a specific crime rather than simply the crime of theft under the Theft Act 1998. 

I am told that this law will not affect Wales and Scotland as it seems they have devolved powers on this matter but I think this needs to be checked. I tried but failed to get clarity.

BBC says: An environment minister explains the role of her two cats - Mr Tipps and Raffa - since she lost her husband and her children left home. Rebecca Pow's bill to make cat and dog theft a criminal offence is backed by the government.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

30% of New Zealand cat owners are opposed to cat confinement and almost 50% are ambivalent

NEWS AND OPINION: This is a recent study from New Zealand about confining cats to the home i.e. full-time indoor cats. It's a modern trend and one that is being discussed in New Zealand as it is in many other developed countries. The objective is twofold (1) to keep the cats safe and (2) to keep wildlife safe from cat predation.

The New Zealand government and local governments within the country are particularly concerned about cat predation on wildlife - native species. They have a mentality which is similar to that found in Australia. It's one in which a focus is placed on protecting native species. The free-roaming domestic cat undermines that objective. But what do the citizens of New Zealand think about domestic cat confinement?

A survey of 395 cat owners as reported online on the Newshub website tells us that 30% of New Zealanders are opposed to keeping their cat inside the home full-time. Only 6% of cat owners in New Zealand do it at the moment while 17% are open to the possibility and 48% are unsure about the concept of full-time indoor cats.

This is not resounding support from cat-owning citizens for keeping cats inside the home. It doesn't surprise me. I've written in the past about the motivation of cat owners in keeping their cats indoors all the time and the prime objective is not to protect wildlife but to protect their cats. And in protecting their cats they avoid the emotional distress of their cat being harmed outside perhaps on the road.

RELATED: Places where domestic cats are confined to the home by law.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that normally cat owners keep their cats inside to avoid the distress that they will suffer if their cat is harmed on the road for instance. To use a long word it is an example of anthropocentrism.

This, I would argue, explains why the percentages from this study are rather poor for those people in authority who wants to keep cats inside to protect wildlife.

The general trend in New Zealand and Australia is for the authorities to want to change the law or make demands on cat owners to keep their cats inside. This survey represents somewhat of a pushback from that desire.

Cat advocates in New Zealand think that it is impractical to demand that all cat owners keep their cats inside all-time and it might be too expensive in for example having to build a catio or a cat confinement fence all around the back yard (£4,000). Both these options are fairly expensive. Although a mini-catio is cheap and better than no catio:

RELATED: Mini-catio is better than no catio.

You can't keep a cat locked up inside your home full-time unless you do something to entertain them which means enriching their environment. Hence the need for a catio. Even then it wouldn't be as good as allowing your cat outside in terms of mental stimulation.

The survey doesn't say this but a lot of cat owners want the best for their cat which means they want them to be happy and a domestic cat is happiest when they are out hunting! That sounds very anti-conservation and it is but if you are focusing on the cat only that is your objective.

New Zealand's cat advocates say that making micro-chipping and sterilisation obligatory would be effective over the long term in protecting wildlife. The problem with that plan is that it will take a very long time and it is difficult to enforce. Both these weaknesses in their plan will upset the authorities because they want something tangible quite quickly because they are elected officials and they need to demonstrate results i.e. success.

My personal view is that it's good that New Zealand is discussing these things but the problem is very hard to totally fix. One plank in the solution that has not been discussed in this news media article is education. If every cat owner was perfect they would microchip their cat, they would sterilise their cat, and they would take their cat outside on a lead or if they confine their cat to the home they would make sure that it was thoroughly enriched for their cat's entertainment. Many cat owners are far from perfect of course.

One issue is a lack of knowledge despite many years of discussion about cat caregiving on the internet. Things have improved by there is work to do.

I think education about cat ownership needs to be in the frame here. I would like to see domestic cat husbandry introduced into schools. It could be wider than that. You could have a course about companion animal husbandry for schoolkids. That should and could be part of the curriculum.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Council proposes criminalising the feeding of feral and stray cats

NEWS AND OPINION: This is another episode in the ongoing saga which troubles America namely how to effectively deal with feral cats. Sometimes these are better described as community cats because they are either semi-feral or even domestic cats recently ejected from their home. That's quite an important point in this discussion.

Meeting to discuss criminalising the feeding of feral cats. Two women for TNR face the meeting's chairperson! Guess who won! Image is a screenshot from the video below.

But historically, in America, councils have struggled with dealing with feral cats because the best way to deal with them is TNR run by volunteers and TNR requires feeding of the cats as this is a humane process. Feeding feral cats is problematic for people who either don't like cats or are unsure about the presence of feral cats.

Regrettably you'll have to watch the video on YouTube as the news media outlet does not want it shown on websites. Please click here to see it. I like it as it shows us the real life struggles in making a decision on dealing with feral cats in the community.

In fact, a lot of people in a community dislike feral cats and want them removed completely whereas on the other hand there are people who see the need to help feral cats. They see their presence as an animal welfare issue whereas the former group see their presence as harming the amenity of the area.

And this background discussion is part of the debate in Strasbourg, Ohio which has proposed criminalising the feeding of feral cats in their community specifically the Tuscarawas County village. Some residents there feel that their community is overrun by feral cats.

The proposed ordinance would stop TNR volunteers feeding feral cats. I can recall, 15 years ago, a big discussion, indeed argument, about feeding feral cats in West Hollywood. At the end of the day, the people who fed feral cats and the TNR program won the day because it is a humane solution.

In this instance, a packed meeting on Tuesday - as I believe you can see in the video - discussed the proposed ordinance at a second reading. It was a chance for community members to voice their concerns.

The video provides a hint as to the outcome of this meeting. It seems that the general community feeling was that criminalising the feeding of feral cats is the wrong thing to do. It is not the best solution. 

One should look at both points of view and one should be sensitive towards those people who don't like to see feral cats being fed because it encourages wildlife to the area. That's the classic issue but overriding that, in my view, is the fact that humankind needs to act humanely towards feral cats because we put them there.

The only humane way to deal with feral cats at the moment is TNR programs hopefully supported by the community and indeed by the local authority, which makes them more effective.

And we have to think of the women (normally) who run these programs. They enjoy doing it. It gives them purpose. They do good work. Let's think of the women volunteers and the occasional man who likes to help reduce the feral cat and community cat population through humane methods as opposed to trapping and killing.

When you watch the video, and you see these wonderful ladies involved in TNR, you simply cannot ignore the strength of the argument that TNR, despite its weaknesses, is the best way forward in a community.

In the video one person spoke up and said that sometimes among the feral cats there is a domestic cat. You cannot trap that cat and kill him or her because you will be committing a true crime that of criminal damage against the property owned by somebody else.

In nearby Dover, the local mayor there said that TNR had made a big impact in the city. TNR has been a success and it can be a success if it is run properly. Here's a quote from News Five Cleveland on "Tusc TNR":

"Since the Tusc TNR program was instituted in the City of Dover 5 years ago, the city has seen a significant reduction in complaints from residents regarding feral cats.  As of October of 2023, the group had trapped, neutered and released 862 cats and adopted out another 228 kittens.  In particular, we previously had an area of town behind several restaurants and other businesses, which we received a number of complaints about.  The TNR program came in and has significantly reduced the number of feral cats in that area.  The TNR group works closely with the city administration to target areas of town as needed and reduce the feral cat population.  The City of Dover has a great working relationship with the Tusc TNR program."

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania has passed a law banning the retail sale of commercially bred cats

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA, has passed a law (ordinance) which bans the retail sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in pet stores. People should understand that pet stores generally acquire animals from Commercial Reading Enterprises (CBEs). A more common term for these businesses is "puppy mills" or "kitten mills". A description which signifies that the animals are churned out with little regard for their health and for ethical breeding standards.

Image courtesy Nathan Winograd's newsletter.

Nathan Winograd writes that, "CBEs engage in systematic neglect and abuse of animals, leaving severe emotional and physical scars on the victims. One in four breeding dogs have significant health problems, are more likely to suffer from aggression, and are psychologically and emotionally shut down, compulsively staring at nothing."

He paints a horror story and thankfully under the new law pet shops can partner with rescue organisations if they want to stock animals for sale/adoption.

The law that is mentioned is one which is becoming increasingly commonplace across America in an acceptance that it is unethical to allow pet shops to purchase dogs from abusive breeders when there are many unwanted companion animals at shelters nearby.

This law will help to encourage people to adopt and rescue animals rather than purchase them, to educate the community about dog and cat puppy mills and kitten mills and thirdly to stop the abuse of these animals.

I'm told that the number of CBEs has declined by 30% across America. In Nebraska, the Nebraska Department of Agriculture's records show that 50% of the state's commercial dog and cat breeders have left the business.

Bethlehem City Council unanimously passed the new ordinance last Tuesday. News media reports that there are no current pet sellers affected by the law but it will stop future businesses doing deals with puppy mills and kitten mills. And of course it sends a very strong message to the community.

The ordinance states: "A significant number of dogs and cats sold at pet stores come from large-scale, commercial breeding facilities where the health and welfare of the animals are not adequately provided for.”

A council member, Grace Smith, said: "I know our furry friends in Bethlehem and throughout the communities, as well as their families, are very grateful."

The penalty for a pet store from selling or offering to sell a cat, dog or rabbit will be a $500 dollar fine for every animal offered in violation of the new ordinance.

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

U.S. First Amendment gives staff the right to criticize a shelter publicly including on social media

Nathan Winograd, a lawyer, a very prominent animal advocate and an expert on how to run an animal shelter to minimise euthanasia, has kindly, in an email to me, reminded us that Americans have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to speak out against government policies with which they disagree including, the situation in which a rescuer and volunteer wishes to speak out and criticise the shelter where they work because they believe that the shelter didn't do enough to prevent the euthanasia of a dog at the shelter.

Of course, it could be any animal earmarked for euthanasia because the shelter might not be well run and therefore too many cats and dogs are being killed. Let's be clear about that. Euthanasia is often simply killing healthy animals. Euthanasia means the humane termination of life of a chronically and terminally sick animal. Many cats and dogs at animal shelters across the world are killed simply because nobody has adopted them and the shelter is full.

Anyway, to get back to the main topic which is the US Constitution's First Amendment. In this story, a former volunteer has filed a lawsuit against Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) in Portland, Oregon, USA for violating her constitutional rights.

She alleges in her lawsuit that the shelter management retaliated against after she had publicly aired her concerns about the shelter's plans to euthanise i.e. kill a healthy one year old poodle.

The volunteer and plaintiff in this lawsuit is Monica Klein. She alleges that the manager of the said shelter, Marian Cannell, terminated her services in July after she had posted on social media her opinion that the shelter's decision to euthanise a dog named Cloud was unnecessary because the shelter management had rebuffed her request to have a chance to find the dog (named Cloud) a suitable home.

The First Amendment most importantly protects American citizens who want to criticise US government agencies, quangos and any other US government organisations. This is been made clear by the US Supreme Court which has consistently ruled that, "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection".

The First Amendment prohibits shelter management from forcing employees and volunteers to sign a nondisclosure agreement which prevents them from criticising the shelter publicly. The first amendment also prevents shelter staff from deleting comments online and social media platforms from banning commenters.

The shelter concerned, MCAS, according to Nathan Winograd, is "no stranger to illegal and abusive conduct thanks to years of mismanagement at the hands of managers and elected officials indifferent to animal suffering."

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.