Up to owners to keep cats contained and controlled
The keeping of cats as companion animals has become a highly contentious topic. I quite like cats but have never understood why cat owners are not subjected to the same rules as keepers of other animals. If it is not deemed appropriate to allow dogs free reign, why do we allow cats to have the run of the neighbourhood. This is for the good of the cat as much as for the birds and lizards. In Britain, where 90% of cats are free roaming, up to 25% die on the roads before they are 12 months old. Several sources agree that indoor cats live longer than free roamers — 15 to 20 years as apposed to 5 to 10. In USA both the Humane Society and the ASPCA promote keeping cats indoors. Up to 77% of pet cats in Australia are kept indoors. Of course we don’t have so many things which will eat cats in New Zealand, but the indication is that cats can live quite happily inside. If one chooses to live with a companion animal, the onus should be on the owner to keep that animal contained or controlled at all times. On a personal note I don’t see why I should have to clean up all the little feline deposits left around my garden.
If one does not want to keep their cat inside, an outdoor escape proof enclosure should be provided. It won’t do the cat any harm and perhaps the neighbours will have less to complain about. Robin Stewar Onekawa
Pilots and alcohol
Interesting that a Singapore Airlines pilot due to fly Canberra Wellington was stood down after a spot check revealed he (she?) had “a higher than suitable blood alcohol limit” (sic). Assuming this awkward grammar is meant to indicate the pilot had a higher than allowable blood alcohol reading, perhaps some reader with knowledge of aviation blood/ alcohol limits, or perhaps Singapore Airlines, could enlighten readers regarding a “suitable” level of intoxication for someone operating public transport capable of carrying 250+ passengers. D B Smith Napier
Reply underwhelming
On 16 September 2018 at 08:50 Keith Simes wrote: Lawrence Yule’s response to Barry Musson’s claim of underfunding by the previous government was sadly underwhelming. His citing of increases in parts of education funding was reminiscent of (previous) Minister of Health Coleman answering every question in the House by telling anyone who would listen that he was spending more than ever. People in the real world knew that health, education, social welfare etc were not keeping up with the needs of anyone who did not have health insurance, or could send their kids to elite schools. The National Party must concede that ‘small government’ will always mean that there is not enough being spent to fulfil the social contract that we as Kiwis aspire to. Aotearoa is horribly divided: In the blue corner are those that care about themselves, facing them are good people who care about others. Keith Simes Hastings