ᐅ Cat droppings or wildlife scat? Warning: image of animal droppings!
Created on: 10 Jul 2018 13:03
A
andimann
Hello everyone,
(Hope I don’t get banned right away for posting a bunch of crap…)
Some animal is leaving a pile of droppings on our lawn almost every night, strangely always in almost the same spot (plus or minus 2 m (6.5 ft)). At first, I suspected the neighbor’s cat, but the pile seems too large for a cat, right? Also, don’t cats usually go into garden beds rather than right in the middle of the lawn?
Question: Can anyone tell me if this could still be cat droppings? If so, I guess a conversation with the neighbors is due.
I’m getting tired of cleaning it up every morning, and even more worried that my kids might step in it while playing or that my son might try to taste it. My nephew once caught worms that way, which was quite unpleasant. That really shouldn’t happen.
And if it’s something else: what could it be and, above all, how do I get rid of it?
Barbed wire, spring-loaded traps, anti-aircraft guns, nuclear bomb?
Best regards,
Andreas
(Hope I don’t get banned right away for posting a bunch of crap…)
Some animal is leaving a pile of droppings on our lawn almost every night, strangely always in almost the same spot (plus or minus 2 m (6.5 ft)). At first, I suspected the neighbor’s cat, but the pile seems too large for a cat, right? Also, don’t cats usually go into garden beds rather than right in the middle of the lawn?
Question: Can anyone tell me if this could still be cat droppings? If so, I guess a conversation with the neighbors is due.
I’m getting tired of cleaning it up every morning, and even more worried that my kids might step in it while playing or that my son might try to taste it. My nephew once caught worms that way, which was quite unpleasant. That really shouldn’t happen.
And if it’s something else: what could it be and, above all, how do I get rid of it?
Barbed wire, spring-loaded traps, anti-aircraft guns, nuclear bomb?
Best regards,
Andreas
Knallkörper schrieb:
Some people have to deal with certain aspects of legal rulings as part of their job. Then statements should be expressed as opinions or assumptions, not as facts.
Knallkörper schrieb:
Can we call you a hobby lawyer because you know how to interpret the traffic regulations? I would rather describe myself as a professional lawyer. Not because I just deal with it, but because I have been formally trained. I am not attacking anyone personally here, but for several years now it has been a real problem that people believe Google and basic language skills can replace professional training. This also applies equally to doctors and many other professions where the "client" thinks they are the smarter one.
kaho674 schrieb:
Of course, you could also take a DNA sample to narrow down the owner of the evidence. Hello kaho,
that’s not such a far-fetched idea.
A cease and desist lawsuit can easily cost one to two thousand euros. To win such a case, a DNA analysis wouldn’t be the worst approach.
Because, and this is what experience shows: cat owners almost always deny any responsibility. They claim their cat has never in its life been in the neighbor’s garden, and it certainly wouldn’t catch a bird. Only half-dead ones. Mice and rats, yes, but birds: never.
Steven
[QUOTE="Fuchur, post: 269705, member: 42376
I would describe myself more as a professional lawyer. Not just because I deal with it, but because I have been trained in it.[/QUOTE]
Hello Fuchur
I don’t think your vague comment will help us much here. You probably could, but your “help” is not really constructive.
You know yourself that, even for lawyers, given the disastrous legislation, it’s more a matter of guessing.
Steven
I would describe myself more as a professional lawyer. Not just because I deal with it, but because I have been trained in it.[/QUOTE]
Hello Fuchur
I don’t think your vague comment will help us much here. You probably could, but your “help” is not really constructive.
You know yourself that, even for lawyers, given the disastrous legislation, it’s more a matter of guessing.
Steven
Knallkörper schrieb:
And this is exactly where you are probably mistaken. a) There is actually no danger to your property.Hello Knallkörper
This is exactly the starting point. The cat positions itself in my garden specifically to relieve itself. I don’t want that. I see my beautiful lawn at immediate risk. A slingshot and shortly thereafter the problem is solved. What is correct: Afterwards, a lawyer should explain to the cat owner that property damage (injury or death of the cat) is not punishable due to justified necessity.
Steven
Knallkörper schrieb:
As long as the danger is present, it can be countered by other means, such as a water hose, loud shouting, or scaring away.
. And that is not correct.
I assume that, similar to the right of self-defense, the justification of necessity must also be considered.
If several equally effective means are available. So, let's say: loud shouting, water hose, slingshot. Are they equally effective? No. Loud shouting might not bother the cat. So shortly after, the damage occurs. Water hose: does it even reach that far? Probably not: damage occurs. Slingshot: effectively prevents the damage from happening. So the slingshot is appropriate.
Steven
How is a justifying emergency supposed to work with equivalent goods? Property (lawn) versus property (animal). The protected legal interest must significantly outweigh the other. This is stated in the law.
And self-defense against animals does not exist at all, since animals cannot attack in a legal sense.
Going through the last 10 pages here would be too tedious for me and probably not productive either.
And self-defense against animals does not exist at all, since animals cannot attack in a legal sense.
Going through the last 10 pages here would be too tedious for me and probably not productive either.
Similar topics