Thread: Taumarunui golf club cat / Facebook mob

Some of you may have seen this news story this morning. It’s certainly getting quite a lot of attention.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/justic...5IYZPL3LNODNA/

Whilst the video in this article has the old fella’s face and rego blurred, he is not blurred in the Facebook version and most in the local community will know who he is by now.

I looked up the Facebook page referenced in the article and was predictably gobsmacked by the hysterical commentary. The SPCA did make a comment about the fact that it is not illegal to shoot a cat as long as it doesn’t suffer, and that there is no legal distinction between a pet and a pest.

But the issue here is the use of the firearm. I am really hoping this fella is able to prove he met the requirements of the law when he talks to the police. Else he's gonna be in a spot of bother. It's likely the golf club folks have been shooting rabbits for years and years.

Anyway, this is what can happen at the hands of hostile witnesses with phone cameras, irrespective of whether the actions or activities are justified or not. Maybe old mate wasn't too smart and was far too close to the houses, maybe not... but that matters not, for The Mob has spoken! This is a real risk for me in my area, as I've mentioned on here before - lots of anti-shooting cat-loving predator-denying ex-suburban rural-wannabees.

This on the day that in Australia the feral cat was listed as the number one most expensive pest, with an estimated annual >$18 BILLION spent on trying to control them! Like WTF how much???

Attachment 173770

If what the cat owner says is true then the shooter is not going to have a gun time. Pointing a gun towards a residential area will never end well

Can't say I care much about the cat though.

would have thought a 6 or 7 iron should have done the trick

Watched the vid. Shooters body language and response pretty much says it all. I think he knew he fucked up and was trying to make a dash for it.

I'd be seriously surprised if he keeps his 1) pest control job 2) firearms license

Originally Posted by Flyblown

I looked up the Facebook page referenced in the article and was predictably gobsmacked by the hysterical commentary. The SPCA did make a comment about the fact that it is not illegal to shoot a cat as long as it doesn’t suffer, and that there is no legal distinction between a pet and a pest.

While I despise cats that is not true. Companion cats are protected under law as a companion animal, and unlike dogs have a right to trespass. You can kill feral cats, but must be very careful to identify them properly.

That said it sounds like he was shooting at a built up area, and clearly with people around. Guy appears to be an idiot.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

While I despise cats that is not true. Companion cats are protected under law as a companion animal, and unlike dogs have a right to trespass. You can kill feral cats, but must be very careful to identify them properly.

That said it sounds like he was shooting at a built up area, and clearly with people around. Guy appears to be an idiot.

OK that's interesting @vulcannz, have you got the text that explains that somewhere? Would be good to compare that to what the SPCA is quoted as having said.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

While I despise cats that is not true. Companion cats are protected under law as a companion animal, and unlike dogs have a right to trespass. You can kill feral cats, but must be very careful to identify them properly.

That said it sounds like he was shooting at a built up area, and clearly with people around. Guy appears to be an idiot.

So how the hell do you tell the difference .

I’d be be pretty unhappy if it was my cat and I don’t even like them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what one of the commentators on the Facebook page had to say; I would be very interested to hear if this is actually incorrect and if so what the law states in terms of shooting cats that are not on their owner’s property. As I type this I remember a case down in Wellington somewhere where cat owners got together to challenge the trapping of cats?


I emailed the SPCA and got this response - which rather surprised me since numerous people said that killing pets was illegal "Thank you for your email. It is concerning to read about cats being shot, however the legal issue under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act) is ensuring that the method by which an animal is killed is humane. The Act does not distinguish between pets and production animals. Shooting, if done correctly, is considered humane for a cat if they are killed instantly. There is no legal requirement for a shooter to determine if an animal (including cats) is a pet, so it becomes more of an ethical issue. Therefore, the issue of cat ownership becomes a matter for the police as a potential 'theft of property' if a shot cat was found to be owned.

However, if a cat is not killed but only wounded, depending on the circumstances, a person may be investigated for potential offences under the Act by an SPCA inspector. In these circumstances the SPCA would require information such as the contact details of the person who shot the cat (name/address/phone number) to be able to follow up and conduct enquiries into the matter. Therefore, if you do have any information regarding the identification of the shooter please contact your local SPCA to discuss whether there are sufficient grounds to have an inspector investigate. You can find the SPCA Centres here: https://www.spca.nz/about#spca-centre-locations.

In order to change the law regarding killing pet cats, you would need to contact the government as they pass the New Zealand legislation in Parliament. Currently Meka Whaitiri is the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare). You can contact her via email m.whaitiri@ministers.govt.nz or through the parliamentary website https://www.beehive.govt.nz/minister/hon-meka-whaitiri.

Just trying to think what a cat could be doing to make a nuisance of its self on a golf course.
Then remembered what it is that they would do in the sand trap.

I read my first post again and I don’t think I’ve done a very good job of communicating what I was thinking. It probably sounds like I’m defending the old fella for shooting someone’s cat, which isn’t really what I was trying to say.

My point was if someone is unhappy with you, whether that reason is legitimate or not, there is nothing to stop them filming you and then starting a campaign against you. Which nowadays is extremely easy to achieve, inciting “mob justice” against an individual before any assessment of the case by the police / courts. At first glance it doesn’t look good for this bloke and if he has fucked up then he must face up to the consequences. But what if he hasn’t fucked up at all and is entirely within his rights to shoot that cat? I feel very strongly that Vinny’s owner should have simply gone to the police from the get go, and that starting a Facebook campaign was completely unnecessary. Sadly that it is very much a sign of the times.

Reading through the Facebook comments there were actually a few laugh out loud moments at some of the craziness on display. Primarily the insistence by several that there is no such thing as a feral cat in New Zealand, just lost and lonely abandoned strays looking for a home. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

I read my first post again and I don’t think I’ve done a very good job of communicating what I was thinking. It probably sounds like I’m defending the old fella for shooting someone’s cat, which isn’t really what I was trying to say.

My point was if someone is unhappy with you, whether that reason is legitimate or not, there is nothing to stop them filming you and then starting a campaign against you. Which nowadays is extremely easy to achieve, inciting “mob justice” against an individual before any assessment of the case by the police / courts. At first glance it doesn’t look good for this bloke and if he has fucked up then he must face up to the consequences. But what if he hasn’t fucked up at all and is entirely within his rights to shoot that cat? I feel very strongly that Vinny’s owner should have simply gone to the police from the get go, and that starting a Facebook campaign was completely unnecessary. Sadly that it is very much a sign of the times.

Reading through the Facebook comments there were actually a few laugh out loud moments at some of the craziness on display. Primarily the insistence by several that there is no such thing as a feral cat in New Zealand, just lost and lonely abandoned strays looking for a home. Whatever.

Yes the cat owner has definitely gone about things in the wrong way here, but as you say this social media naming and shaming has become the norm now. I can understand the cats owner doing this, if he had already taken it to the police and they didnt want to know, but it doesnt sound like that is the case.

If the story played out like described by the cats owner, he said the cat was shot while it was on his own section, and he said the shooter was pointing the rifle at the houses. If correct then I wouldnt want to be the old boy shooter.

After watching the video footage captured by the cats owner, the shooter didnt deal with the situation in a great way at all. By doing what he did (nothing and just walking away) he has only inflamed the situation further.

Unless miles out in the backcountry well away from houses there is always that bit of doubt that can creep in as to if the cat is feral or potentially a pet. Ive shot a few ferals over the years while out doing rabbit control in orchards that do have some houses not too far away.

On these properties I always like to get a really good look at cats first before pulling the trigger, in my experience thus far the ferals are fairly obvious compared to domestic pets. Of the cats ive shot upon recovery of them i havnt got it wrong yet, theres been some cats closer to the houses where i have my doubts about them being ferals and ive left them.

We have a pet cat, kids got it as a kitten in the last couple of years, but right from when we first got it, it gets locked in the house at night and sleeps on the end of my daughters bed, it's not free to roam around hunting, during the day it hunts butterflies and leaves blowing around in the breeze, it looks at birds and pukekos with interest but its too useless to catch any.

It's always an ethical thing with shooting cats I think, my wife really doesn't like me shooting them at all, but I know the damage a feral cat can do. But I'd be a bit upset with myself if i did end up shooting someones pet, hence I'm very careful with getting a decent look at them first on the properties i shoot.

It'll be interest to see how this situation plays out.

Stupid old goat !!
I know that area well - be the last thing you would do on that Golf Course
95% chance any Moggy there be a family pet

No - he needs a good lesson
On Facebook or TV - no
Just dealt with in proper Official way

For the purpose of covering my own arse and those of my neighbours where we remove pest cats (trapping & shooting), I took a look at the claim that as companion animals, pet cats have legal protection to trespass onto other people’s properties (see post #5).

Words to this effect can be found on numerous cat enthusiast websites, as well as in some of the media articles about this golf club incident. But it is also mentioned on legal websites:

Community Law
It’s generally accepted that cats are allowed to wander on to other people’s property and that the owner isn’t responsible for any damage they do.

Citizen’s Advice Bureau / Law Society
Cats are allowed to trespass and their owner is usually not liable for damage the cat does to neighbouring property.

Turner Hopkins Legal - Neighbour Law Part 2
Cats - unlike dogs, cats are not closely regulated, and are allowed to trespass. The cat’s owner is not usually liable for any damage made by their cat.


So I went looking for this law, and initially ran into a heap of dead ends as the references all linked to old MPI documents that have been removed.

So I started with the Animal Welfare Act (1999), which uses Codes of Welfare for each animal group. The one that applies to cats was first produced in 2007, but updated and replaced in 2018. All the dead end links point to the 2007 document, and I can’t find that one now.

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/...Companion-cats

The Code of Welfare: Companion Cats is the legal framework that links back to the Animal Welfare Act. It’s against this code that any legal issues are judged. I haven’t been able to find anything else legal-like that talks about companion cats.

Failure to meet a minimum standard in this Code may be used as evidence to support a prosecution for an offence under the Act.

Anyway, this code makes no reference to cats being allowed to trespass. It may have stated something along these lines in the previous 2007 version, hence the prevalent view online that cats are allowed to trespass.

The NZ Veterinary Association says in its Responsible Companion Cat Ownership policy (2018):

To avoid companion cats having a negative impact on other people, animals and the environment, an owner should:

• not allow cats to stray from their property
• ensure cats do not predate on vulnerable, native wildlife. Measures to reduce predation include the use of deterrent collars, curfews, confinement and the use of cat aviaries.
• ensure cats do not use neighbours’ yards or gardens for toileting

So has something changed? Did they drop the permissible trespass part? The only part of the current code that talks about cats wandering says:

It is strongly recommended that cats are able to be accurately identified in case of loss, or being held in boarding accommodation. Cats are likely to spend some of their time outside of their owner’s legal property boundary. For the purposes of control, it is necessary to be able to identify whether a cat has an owner or not.

If any of you fellas know something about the legalities that I haven’t been able to find yet, then please post it because I would like to know exactly where we stand regarding the removal of pest cats in rural areas. I am specifically interested in this business of cats being legally allowed to trespass with no owner liability, which I have not been able to identify in either the act or the code.