Man looks after severely neglected cat but is accused of stealing the cat by the owner

This is a cat ownership story that ends well but it's a bit of a saga to get to that point. It appears to come from America where a kind-hearted man was concerned about a cat that had been locked outside for around two years by his owner, a woman. The man took pity on the cat and fed him and let him in when he could. As a consequence, the woman came around to his home and accused him of stealing her cat. He felt obliged to stop helping the cat at that point as he didn't want to cause any trouble.

Read the story in the light of this update, please: I have learned that the woman's then boyfriend insisted the cat was put outside. She complied. She's now dumped her boyfriend. I feel sorry for her but she's lost her cat. Moral: stand your ground if your boyfriend tells you to get rid of the cat.

He is now called Jarvis. This is the star of the story. He's now loved by a good man. Photo: Reddit.

About two weeks later he actually saw this cat hit by a car while crossing the road at a time when his neighbour was not at home. The cat was badly injured. The man took the cat to the vet where a leg was amputated at a cost of $3000.

The man decided to take steps to keep the cat. He reported the cat as a stray to the vet. The vet checked the cat for a microchip but he didn't have one so he helped him contact a shelter to file a "lost pet" report. There is a five day holding period at that shelter during which the owner can claim ownership. After the five days is up the cat is available for rehoming. Nobody claimed the cat. The man claimed ownership.

The previous owner, the negligent woman who had previously accused him of stealing the cat, saw the now three-legged cat in the man's window and demanded that he hand over her pet. She threatened him by saying that she would contact the police. She accused him again of stealing her cat. He said that she must have the wrong cat because he has three legs. He slammed the door in her face.

She screamed through the door for a while and then left. The man is waiting to find out if she did indeed contact the police. He posted the story on Reddit.com and ask for advice. Everyone said that he did a good job. They praised him. They said he was safe from any prosecution for theft because he had reported the matter to the local shelter and the true owner had had a five day period to claim her pet.

He posted on Reddit:

"The cat’s name is Jarvis and he is very happy back as an indoor cat. He is chipped even though I didn’t plan on letting him out again. He’s been recovering remarkably well, even if he’d rather meow at me to carry him rather than walk on his own -.- we’re gonna have a good life together."

My opinion: Great ending. Nice man. The Reddit users are correct. The man did the right thing. He is safe from prosecution. The woman is all mouth and no trousers. She has lost her cat companion and rightly so. The story ended up well as this cat is now loved and in a warm and friendly home. Sadly he has lost one of his legs in the journey to a good home. This should not have happened. This man is also very generous in spending $3000 on someone else's (at the time).

Letting the domestic cat roam freely breaks European Union law. Discuss.

The EU Birds and Habitats Directives places an obligation upon an EU member states to protect wildlife. It requires member states to implement two main sets of provisions, the first of which is to take steps to establish a strict protection regime for all wild European bird species and other endangered species as per an annex of the directive. Member states are also required to designate core sites for the protection of species and habitat types as listed in the annex. In other words member states have to do certain things to make sure that they protect wildlife.

Outside cat stalking prey. Image in public domain.

The directive seems to come into conflict with the natural order of things which is to let domestic cats go outside freely, unsupervised. This is the default position for domestic cats in Europe as far as I am aware. It certainly applies to the UK. Although of course the UK is no longer a EU member state.

Campaigners in the Netherlands under the banner Huiskat Thuiskat which means 'domestic cat' in Dutch are bringing a test case to the Dutch courts. The argument is that the Dutch government is not doing enough to meet their obligations under the EU directives referred to. One thing they could be doing is to make it obligatory to keep domestic cats indoors or allow them outside only when supervised. The Dutch government should issue national legislation which meets the requirements under the EU directives.

The campaigners want the court to rule on this, to force the Dutch government to do something about the predation of domestic cats on wildlife. There are, apparently, between two and 3 million domestic cats and about 10,000 feral cats and strays in the country. They say that the caretaker agriculture Minister has a legal obligation to act if damage is done to protected species by predation of free-roaming cats.

The Dutch have become cruel to cats

The argument is that they pose a serious threat to some 370 species in the Netherlands. It is a well rehearsed argument in many other countries including perhaps most importantly America. It is certainly an argument which constantly challenges the politicians of Australia who have tried all manner of means to limit predation of native species by both domestic and feral cats.

ASSOCIATED POST: Pictures of the Shop Cats of China by Dutch photographer Marcel Heijnen

In the Netherlands, the campaigners say that the rules are in place i.e. the EU directives place an obligation upon EU member states to do something about conservation, but the rules are not being applied. The reason given is that it is a hot potato as there are 3 million domestic cat owners in the Netherlands. I guess there might be a loss of votes in favour of the ruling party. The politicians do not want to antagonise their voters.

The question is whether the judge will rule in favour of birds or cats? My personal opinion is that the legal action won't work perhaps because the EU directives are worded too generally. They are not specific enough. A member state can do lots to protect wildlife and thereby comply with the directive without confining domestic cats to their homes.

Cats must have negative Covid test before entering India

The Indian government has made it mandatory for members of the cat family to have a negative test for Covid before they are allowed into the country. This includes domestic cats to the big cats, in fact any cat! The new rules also include gorillas. The objective is obvious, namely to try and minimise the spread of the disease in the country. It is the first of its kind. 

It's an interesting rule because the experts have consistently stated that there is no evidence that cats transmit the disease to people despite the fact that that it is a zoonotic disease. Zoonotic diseases are those that can be transmitted between humans and animals and vice versa.

Cats must have negative Covid test before entering India

So, I guess this rule has been enacted out of an abundance of caution, as the politicians say. The government states that large cats and gorillas are "having high susceptibility of infection against natural Covid-19 infection". The information for this they say comes from the World Animal Health Organisation Technical Fact Sheet.

The rule will be in place until the pandemic has ended. The negative test must be no older than three days. The world knows that India is going through a surge in infections for Covid. Their reported rate of infection and deaths are highly misleading. They are heavily underreported. The families of people who die of Covid do not report the matter. These people are not taken to hospital. There is no record of them dying. They are burnt on funeral pyres. We see them in car parks.

It is entirely wrong for the news media to list comparisons of infections and deaths on a country-by-country basis because each country reports this data differently. If there was a uniform reporting system you can compare the data but this is not the case.

The UK, for example, states that if anybody dies within 28 days of getting Covid their death certificate states that they died of Covid! There is no other country on the planet that is so generous in his assessment of death by Covid! And yet the UK is constantly criticised the high death rates. I'm digressing.

Big cats and zoos have been known to get Covid from their zookeepers. Domestic cats and dogs have contracted Covid but we don't know the numbers but they are very low. It is a minor issue in controlling the virus. Although some scientists believe that animals may become a reservoir for the virus when it has been quelled by social distancing and vaccinations.

I would expect further action to take place both in India and in other countries with respect to how we deal with zoo and companion animals. There is a call for vaccinating animals against the virus and in Russia they do have a vaccination for that purpose. But can we trust Russian vaccinations? Russian citizens do not trust their own vaccine which is why they have an incredibly poor rate of take-up of inoculations against the virus in Russia. I'm digressing again!

Cat Trespassing

Cat trespassing can be irritating or worse for some people. I used to live in a bungalow with a garden and my darling Missie who was killed on the road outside the bungalow used to go next door. The next door neighbours didn't like it and I can understand that as he was a keen gardener. Cats can make a bit (but only a bit) of a mess in a garden sometimes. He simply made some noise and she came back.

What if he had put in place deterrents that caused injury to my cat? In the UK there are one or two things that can be done although the law is a bit of a mess on this. It is also untested.

The Occupiers Liability Act is designed to protect anyone who is injured as a result of the negligence of the occupier of the building or land. So for example, if I visited a persons house at Christmas and his staircase collapsed and caused injury, the person who occupied the house could be liable in negligence (the tort of negligence) and be required to pay compensation.

The liability extends to trespassers. A trespasser can, it seems, include your cat. For trespassers the duty of care is a little tighter. If the occupier knows that there is a danger and that your cat may come into contact with that danger and the risk is one that you could have provided protection against then the occupier could be liable.

Obviously if the occupier takes deliberate steps to deter the cat the test above is satisfied. Clearly if the human keeper of the cat accepts the risks knowing they exist then that would be a defence for the occupier of the property.

The best course of action is to take steps to avoid the problem occurring through preventative measures and dialogue. The rights of humans (your neighbour) is as important as those of your cat.

If you were forced to litigate on this expect a bumpy ride and an expensive one if you used a lawyer. Although this might fall under the small claims process. I would doubt if anyone would sue under this act in reality. It is too problematic. In general people accept that there is little that can be done in law against "trespassing" domestic cats. The answer is in dialogue. In North America, neighbors occasionally kill trespassing cats. That is cruel and against the criminal law in the UK.

Thanks to the author of the book Veterinarian Notes for Cat Lovers (for bringing this to my attention)

Photo copyright Paul Watson reproduced under Creative Commons

Iowa has banned ownership of felines with wild ancestry

Bengal cats banned by Iowa. This ban included all cats with a wild ancestry meaning wild cat/domestic cat hybrids. These cats are the Bengal, Chausie, Savannah and Safaris for example.

Photograph illustrating this article is copyright Helmi Flick

Those with these cats can continue to live with them provided they comply with some fairly strict rules and pay a yearly fee. "USDA licensed owners and breeders ARE NOT EXEMPT unless they are 501(c)3 non-profit as well, or are a wildlife rehabber" (quote from this site: http://fennecfoxes.com)

Here's an extract from the legislation:

5. a. "Dangerous wild animal" means any of the following:

(3) A member of the family felidae of the order carnivora, including
but not limited to lions, tigers, cougars, leopards, cheetahs, ocelots, and
servals. However, a dangerous wild animal does not include a domestic cat.

5. b. "Dangerous wild animal" includes an animal which is the offspring of
an animal provided in paragraph "a" (this seems to refer to 5 a above), and another animal provided in that paragraph or any other animal. It also includes animals which are the
offspring of each subsequent generation.

For clarification, the basic argument/interpretation is as follows:

Clause 5. a Defines the term "Dangerous wild animal"

clause 5 a contains a numbered list (1) to (10)

Number (3) refers to "a member of the family felidae....including leopards

Clause 5. b refers to "Dangerous wild animal" includes an animal which is the offspring of an animal provided in paragraph "a" (my note: this refers to 5 a above) and another animal provided in that paragraph or any other animal. It also includes animals which are the offspring of each subsequent generation.

This would therefore seem to include the Bengal cat as she is a Leopard/domestic cat hybrid or subsequent generation.


I live in the UK so please investigate further. This law seems to reflect the continued discussion and controversy on the issue of ownership of these breeds. All the evidence and experience seems to point to the fact that these cats are not dangerous so what is the underlying purpose behind this law?