Couple of burglars take their cat with them in the getaway car

Burglars take their cat with them. Screenshot.

NEWS AND COMMENT: A couple of burglars appear to have taken a cat with them in their car! Who'd do that? The burglars had to abort the burglary of a local chemist and got away with $500 of drugs before being caught by the police. In the meantime their cat was in the getaway car! The police called the RSPCA who took the cat away. I'll presume that once the alleged criminals have been tried and by the look of it convicted that they'll eventually be reunited with their cat. If the cat belongs to them.

They are currently on remand as we call it in the UK meaning in a police cell until trial. As they were caught red-handed in the act, they'll be convicted. I wouldn't expect them to be imprisoned but Australia have a different culture. The point is that the cat needs to be reunited with their owner or owners so when will that happen? If it should happen at all.

There is an argument that says they should not own a cat as their caretaking is substandard! Taking a cat on a burglary indicates less than optimal car caregiving, I think you'd agree. But as mentioned this might not be their cat. Scanning a microchip comes to mind to check for the owner.

That said I should not prejudge. One of them could be the owner and he might be a bloody good cat owner. Perhaps they were just in dire straits and hatched a bad plan to make some quick bucks. We don't know. They might not be hardened criminals but silly blokes.

It's tough for the cat as she/he will now have to spend time in an animal shelter which are unpleasant places for rescue cats and dogs: noisy and strange.

6.5 years in jail, the longest Canadian sentence for animal cruelty

Aleeta Raugust. Image: Screenshot from video.

A young woman, living in Calgary, Canada, Aleeta Raugust, told police that she deliberately bought kittens through an online marketplace called Kijiji between 2018 and early 2023 with the intention of killing them, videotaping the killing and watching them to entertain herself. She also placed the bodies in public places to watch the reactions of those who saw them.

She underwent a psychological assessment before sentenced and was described as an impulsive psychopath with no remorse.

Her mother said that if she is released from prison that she will commit more horrific crimes.

The prosecution at her criminal trial requested an 8-10 sentence but the judge - arguably too soft - said that he did not want to give her the maximum sentence allowable under Canadian law to ensure that the sentence wasn't "crushing for a youthful offender."

She was 26 years of age in March of this year. She pleaded guilty to 9 charges involving animal abuse as well as a charge of threatening to damage property. She tended to burn down her former residence.

The news media headlines are that a Calgary woman tortured and killed cats. I don't have details about the torturing but she did video her cruelty towards the cats. I think it is better that we don't have to read a horrendous description of what she did but rather leave something to the imagination.

It is certain that she was horrendously cruel but without any remorse or sensitivity towards the animals. Arguably, she is more in need of psychological treatment then she is in need of an extended punishment but perhaps she requires both.

The previous longest sentence of animal cruelty in Canada was three years. Clearly, for many animal advocates, three years is far too short. But historically judges are reluctant to give extended sentences to those convicted of animal cruelty because animals are devalued in my opinion.

So, this 6.5-year sentence is the longest ever handed down to a criminal convicted of animal cruelty in Canadian history.

Texans convicted of animal cruelty will be banned from owning animals for five years

NEWS AND COMMENT: A pleasing new animal welfare law has been enacted in the American state of Texas. Those miscreants who have been successfully convicted of animal cruelty will be barred from owning animals for five years. Animal cruelty includes dogfighting. And the law applies to those who been convicted of animal cruelty for the first time. This is a much-needed step I would argue but I am an animal advocate and not everybody will be with me on this topic.

Shelter dog. Image in public domain.

But clearly, Texas' politicians i.e. the lawmakers of that state have decided to make it harder for people who want to be cruel to animals to own and possess them. And this surely must be correct.

The legislation, House Bill 598, successfully passed through the legislature. It was sponsored by state Rep Matt Shaheen, R-Plamo. It also covers people who have unjustifiably injured an assistant animal or who have been cruel to non-livestock animals. The law came into effect Friday.

Although, surprisingly, I'm told by the Texas Tribune that convicted offenders will still be able to live in the same household as animals. Isn't that peculiar? The idea of banning ownership of animals by convicted criminals is to prevent them being around animals. To prevent them being cruel again to animals. If they can live in the same home as animals that are possessed and owned by somebody else, they have the opportunity to be cruel again, don't they?

The law apparently also applies to people who've lived with assistance animals. If that person is then cruel to an animal and is convicted of animal cruelty they will lose their assistance animal under this legislation, as I understand it.

And if an order banning a person from owning an animal for five years under this legislation is then found to have an animal during that period, they could be charged with a Class C misdemeanour and be fined $500. And if they repeatedly breach the order, they could be charged with a Class B misdemeanour with an increased fine of $2000 and a possible jail term of 180 days.

The new legislation is one of 774 bills passed by the Texas Legislature during this season. This addition to the animal protection laws of Texas will be more effective in protecting animals. Simply punishing people by fining them or imprisoning them is arguably less effective at protecting animals than banning them from owning animals.

Animal cruelty is often a precursor to violence against people. This is a known phenomenon and therefore animal cruelty should be dealt with severely. An example would be the Uvalde school shooter. That person had committed animal cruelty and posted it on social media.

There is one last point to make and that is people who are inclined to be cruel to animals probably need psychological treatment of some sort. They need help as well as punishment. My personal theory is that they are often very angry people. They want to hurt somebody or something because they have been hurt themselves. It is the vulnerable domestic animals of this world who become the victims.

How do I get my cats to stop stealing my man?

 It seems that the woman feels that her cats are 'stealing' her man because they love being with him as the picture shows. My response was this:

Let them both have the freedom to have their relationships as it will strengthen your relationship.

What I mean is if she tries to restrict access between the cats and her man, she'll stress her relationship with her man whereas in doing the opposite he'll appreciate it and it'll be good for her relationship. Giving your partner freedoms is the best way to bring them nearer. Restricting people pushes them away. Allowing freedoms brings the person closer.

But it nice to see that the cats seem to prefer the man! Uhm..that's good as the default impression we have from the internet is that dogs are a man's best friend and cats belong with women! Nah...wrong.

How do I get my cats to stop stealing my man? They get along great, don't they? Image: Reddit user: u/MckennaMakes

My kitten is 13 weeks old and does not eat her wet cat food. Ideas?

 This title was/is on Reddit.com. This is my response on that social media website:

Dry cat food is sprayed with tasty stuff which can make it addictive almost. Without this covering it is like cardboard. I think it is fairly important that she eats some wet. What might work is trying best quality wet and heating it very slightly in the microwave. Also try wet food for elderly cats for a short time as it is smellier. Just some thoughts. Eating dry all the time might make her slightly dehydrated. It can cause urinary tract issues. If she is a rescue cat, she may have got used to dry food at the shelter.

I am not sure I am completely right but the gist is correct. 

Here is the sweet, young, grey cat. Photo by Reddit user: u/Coke900lp.

I will add a little bit of detail. It is not unusual on my research for domestic cats to become almost addicted to dry cat food because it appears to be tastier than some wet cat foods. It must depend upon the quality of the food as well but they do spray tasteless dry cat food with a fatty spray which makes it very tasty. And it probably smells better than some wet cat food as well. And they get in the habit of eating dry cat food only as this cat has.

I think a possible solution is to buy high quality wet cat food for elderly cats which is smellier than your typical wet cat food and then microwave it for a very short time say five seconds on full power. This will ensure that the food is smellier which is important as smell is how cats judge the palatability of food initially.

As stated, I think domestic cats should eat wet cat food as a default and then some dry cat food when appropriate perhaps at night for grazing. And the odd treat. But to feed dry only can, on the say-so of some veterinarians, cause mild dehydration because domestic cats don't compensate for the dryness by drinking more than they would normally drink. 

And if a cat is mildly dehydrated it can affect their urinary tract and it might predispose them to urinary tract health problems especially if they might, for some reason, become slightly stressed. Stress can cause to cystitis when combined with dry cat food only.

Keeping cats indoors is a rare solution where everybody wins including the cat. Is this correct?

Full-time indoors. Image: MikeB (Canva).

In The Guardian today there is an article written by Calla Wahlquist which says that keeping cats indoors is a solution where everybody wins. By "everybody" I presume she means people and cats. She is goes on to state that "cats should be kept indoors for the sake of cats".

For full-time indoor cats their behaviour is neutered as is their anatomy. It is the modern way to turn cats into fluffy plush feline toys. - MikeB

How does she know? How does she know what is good for cats? Is she mind reading domestic cats? No, she's not. All she is doing is stating that when cats are kept indoors, they are protected and therefore safer. But that might not be the same thing as being what's good for cats. Domestic cats might like to take risks. They might not mind being injured or hurt or killed. Perhaps their normal lifestyle is to take risks? Perhaps they are happier when they take risks.

Perhaps they need to be predators outside unsupervised. Perhaps being happy and living a life which is shorter is better than being unhappy and living a life which is longer. A lot of people think that statement is true.

And there is a big hole in her argument. People do keep cats indoors a lot nowadays to protect wildlife and keep their cat safe but they do not enrich the interior of their homes to ensure that their full-time indoor cats are kept entertained; kept happy. They just close the doors on them and confine them to what is a list zoo-like but entirely human environment. Somewhat sterile. Perhaps very sterile.

And that's why you often see people saying that their cat sleeps all day. Absolutely! That's all he or she can do. There is nothing else to do but to sleep/snooze because the poor thing is confined to the indoors all the time and the owner is not entertaining them. He or she is not playing with them. There is no way to express their character. The natural drives are neutered as are they. There is no cat companion to play with. Is that better for the cat?

The reason why people keep cats indoors all the time is for their peace of mind. That is the primary purpose. The secondary purpose is to keep wildlife safe but you will find in studies that the vast majority of people don't really care about keeping wildlife safe. They want to keep their cats safe because they don't want to be anxious about their cat being hurt outside. Or lost or stolen.

The decision to keep a cat indoors full-time is human-centric. It is about human emotions primarily. And in Australia where there is a trend towards keeping cats indoors full-time or curfews on keeping cats indoors at night, this changing human behaviour is a directive from the authorities. It is the conservationists of Australia who are telling the authorities to do all they can to stop domestic cat preying on native mammals and marsupials, especially the small ones. 

And so, the authorities dictate to people to keep the cats indoors. If it wasn't for that directive, I don't think they would do it. Unless of course they've being fully indoctrinated about protecting wildlife which actually might be the case.

I can't even be bothered to read Calla's article because I know what it states before I read it. It's just talking about protecting wildlife and then arguing back from there to say that it's better for cats anyway to keep them indoors. Frankly, it isn't. 

If we really wanted to make the domestic cat's life better, we would allow them to go outside perhaps into a large enclosure which encompasses the entire backyard full of games for the cat to play and trees to climb. No one will do that because it's too expensive. They will just close the front and back door and call the job done. I get it. I understand what's going on but Calla is wrong when she confidently says that everybody wins.

When you keep cats indoors full-time the cat does not win. They lose. They lose their life. They lose a chance to express that predatory drive. To hunt, to chase the feel alive. Their behaviour is neutered as well as their anatomy.

Influencer's chinchilla Persian believed stolen for satanic purposes

NEWS AND COMMENT-ITALY: this disturbing story of an Internet influencer's pet cat carries a lesson about what to do with your cat when you go on holiday. It concerns a lady, Nima Benati, who clearly loves cats and lives with a chinchilla Persian who was not micro-chipped. She lives in Italy and she has a habit of leaving her cat with her parents when she goes on holiday. She is a social media influencer.

Nima Benati and Bartolo. Image: Social media.

They live in Monghidoro, a small town near Bologna. She went on holiday to Costa Rica. In the past all had worked out well. Only this precious cat which looks expensive and valuable, is allowed to roam outside unsupervised wherever they wish to go when staying with relatives. In the past, he has been away for a couple of days and come back sopping wet with a mouse in her mouth.

In other words, he is treated like any other domestic cat which is fair enough but when a cat is this attractive and almost certainly looks to the public like a purebred cat then you have to supervise them when they go outside.

Anyway, this lovely looking cat whose name by the way is Bartolo, never came back from one of his outings and her disappearance has joined what appears to be a large group of other cats who gone missing their Bologna.

Thirty cats have been reported missing last month alone in a small stretch of the Apennine Mountains. Nima Benati is offering a €5000 reward for her cat's return.

RELATED: ‘Chinchilla’, its meaning in the cat world (infographic).

Benati has commissioned a pet detective, Said Beid, to find her cat. He, tellingly, shed some light on what might have happened because he says that cat disappearances are common during the summer in Italy when owners go on holiday and they leave their companion animals with friends or family.

The cat is suddenly plunged into unfamiliar surroundings and this makes them vulnerable because, for example, they might want to try and go home. They use their great sense of direction to head home and get lost (if it is too far) and then they get attacked by a predator or stolen or they die of starvation and so on.

Or, they might get attacked by a predator when popping outside. The cat might escape but if they end up outside, they are in a vulnerable position to attack by predators and theft. Italy has some large predators.

The Italian Association for the Protection of Animals and the Environment believes that there might be a satanic sect in the area abducting cats for satanic purposes. That seems like imagination running riot but it is quite plausible because there are people engaged in witchcraft and suchlike even today in the 21st-century.

A spokesperson said: "The issue is urgent and alarming, and cat owners are beginning to be afraid". The Association has reported the presence of sects across Italy whose members sacrifice black cats to mark Halloween.

Of course, Bartolo is like a son to Nima Benati. I'm surprised that she didn't have him micro-chipped although that would not have worked in this instance if the cats are being killed. Others have been reported missing such as Eddie, a 12 kg cat that disappeared near Monzumo on August 21. His owners have offered a €1000 reward for his return.

Some owners have found their cats with their collars unbuckled whatever that means. The police are investigating.

The lesson to be learned from this is that when you leave your cat with a friend or relatives when you go on holiday, your cat is exposed to higher-than-normal risk of being injured, killed or lost. And that is a very important lesson. 

There is a great difficulty actually in dealing with a domestic cat when their owner goes on holiday because the alternative is to leave them at a boarding cattery which although safe is very stressful for a cat. There are no easy answers. I haven't gone on holiday for many years mainly for this reason!