Is it cruel or kind to keep a cat in?

[nc8975]

We adopted our kitten back in the summer, she's now 8 months old, spayed, vaccinated, chipped etc. She was semi wild (on a farm) from birth until we got her at about 13 weeks, living with her mum and litter mates outside but fed by someone.

She is keen to go outside; dashes for the door and looks longingly out the window), but we're really worried she won't come back or will get hurt. We live on a housing estate next to a bit of open land, but also quite close to a railway line (not hugely busy one). We have a good sized home but can't help but feel we are cooping her up a bit (I WFH so she has company most of the day and we play with her)

Which option is kinder? Will she just adapt to being indoors?

Not as a blanket rule no. But it is to keep some cats

Funny how indoor cats live longer.i just don't want to take the risk. My cats are happy

Here you go.

www.cats.org.uk/help-and-advice/getting-a-cat/cats-and-the-law

The specific act you're looking for is the Theft Act of 1986, which states that "Cats are regarded in law as property, so the theft of a cat is treated as an offence under the Act, in the same way as theft of any other property."

My cats are happy to. They wouldn't be if they were forced inside.

Mine aren't forced to stay in. We just made the decision to keep them in and they're scared when outside

We'd have to force 3 out of the 4 in to keep them inside. One is indoor by choice. Which is why I say that in some cases it is fine.

I think what you meant is that a cat can be, but you would have to be able to prove it. Difficult if the cat goes outside. The Theft Act applies to many things!

No, actually, that's not what I meant at all 🙄Cats are property in the UK - that's what the law says. The fact that the Theft Act also applies to many other things is totally irrelevant.

You can prove ownership of a cat via its' microchip. It's not rocket science to have your cats chipped and registered to you in case they go missing.

Not if they're microchipped.

Well, it's complicated by two things in reality.

One is the action of the cat.

The second is if it stays with you.

There are not too many cases of cat theft for this reason.

You will note that the new offence of pet abduction does not apply to cats. Even a microchip is not enough to ensure "ownership".

I have had cats all my life and would never keep them in, we have a cat flap so they can come and go but we never let them out the front door, if they wanted to they could make their way to the front but they never do. I just have to pray they don't get run over or taken, they both mainly hang around in the garden or go in the woodland behind my garden.

In my view I just want them to have a happy life and mine enjoy going out in the garden chasing flies and running / laying in the sun, keeping them in would make them unhappy

Why are you refusing to accept you're wrong?

Legally, they belong to themselves.

This is your quote. It was wrong. A microchip, along with other evidence such as vet registration/records, medical certificates and other documentation, counts towards proof of ownership. Most decent car owners have enough proof they've owned their cat for years.

My point is, you need to show that the cat is your property for the theft act to apply. A microchip is good evidence but it is not conclusive. And that your cat, by letting it outside, microchip or not, can decide to live with someone else. That would not be theft of property.

The cat would have decided to live somewhere else.

What's wrong with pointing that out? If you keep your cat indoors, you will have your property secured, then okay. But if you let the cat out, there's a doubt. Why is it unreasonable to point that out?

If I knock on someone's house and say that's my cat in your window and they refuse to give my cat back to me, it's theft.

But you are confusing two things in law. You may say it's your property and you own your cat, and if you kept indoors, registered, and microchip and someone broke in, stole the cat, great case.

No microchip, cat goes outside and moves in with a little old lady? Not likely theft or property for the Theft Act

@AllThingsServeTheBeam - cross post. Of course if you keep your cat indoors with a microchip and someone takes, that is theft. Easy to prove

No. My microchipped cats go out. Same rule applies.

Well, I'm not trying to upset you but.

Your cat say comes to my house, no collar. It stays. Now I don't know it is yours. If I don't take it to the vet, and have a reasonable belief it is stray or abandoned, is that theft?

Well yeah if you find that they're microchipped and decide to keep them.. why do you need that explaining to you?

But in my scenario I don't find out. I don't have to by law?

Do you see the issue?

But if I see the cat in your house and refuse to give me my cat back I will call the police. They might not come that day but they do take it seriously and they will come to you and make sure the cat is scanned.

By the way I do have a cat on my premises! What I am saying here is that there is basically a huge gap in the law re theft of cats. If a person is not publicly minded to get a cat checked for a microchip there is nothing to compel them do so legally, then you would have the very devil of a job proving that that person intended to steal your cat.

They would just say they thought it a stray. Or reasonably, the cat stayed with them.

But a knock on the door stating the cat is in fact owned would 9 times out of 10 sort the issue unless the person is a twat. Otherwise the police would be informed.

I'm not remotely worried about people stealing my cats as unless they actually caged them they wouldn't be able to keep them in