December 8, 2004
Lower East Side Cat Dispute
Cat owners, be warned: A Lower East Side woman's cat disappeared while she was away, only to appear at a Petco and later be adopted by another person. And according to NY law, the original owner can't claim the cat, as the "law mandates that an adoption agency must keep an animal for at least 48 hours to give the owner a chance to claim it," because original owner Chavisa Woods was 4 days too late. Instead, Oliver, the Russian Blue cat with a "rare urinary-tract infection" (he needs special food), was adopted by a woman. The new owner refused to comment about the adoption to the Post, with KittyKind, the non-profit cat rescue group, saying that the new owner loves the cat and believes the cat is happy with her. Not that Woods' love for Oliver can be replaced, but Gothamist wonders if the errant catsitter who left a window open should offer to get her a new cat. Yet another reason for the animal tracking microchip.
The French film, When the Cat's Away, is a romantic look at what happens when your catsitter loses your cat.
|
Advertisement: Gothamist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Microchipping your pet is a great idea, but pet owners should be sure that the chips are readable by most scanners. One company, whose chips are distributed through a large chain pet supply store, was recently issued a preliminary injunction preventing them from selling their chips because of deceptive advertising (story can be found here:http://cf.us.biz.yahoo.com/bw/041104/45798_1.html).
Anyone who fucks with a cat should be killed. Feline life is more precious than human.
What?! How can the new owner refuse to give the cat back to the previous owner? If she understands why she wants the cat to stay with her, she should be able to look beyond that and see why the previous owner would want to have the cat back. 48 hours really doesn't seem like a long enough time to find your cat in all of your New York City, and I think the rescue agency would want original pet owners to get their pets back, in the spirit of rescuing and saving animals.
Wow, the new owner is certainly the bad guy in this one. How dreadfully selfish.
Man, I'm going to give my cats some extra pets this evening.
Wow; giving your cat extra "pets" is sure going to show some respect. Why don't you love your cat instead and play with it and make it happy as a companion would - not treating it like a fucking submissive stuffed toy.
Um, because I'm all tired out from playing with your mom?
"Pets" is a euphamism for "all around love and attention", you literal-minded dunderhead.
Life is precious; feline life is not more precious... psycho
A monitor chip for pets? We need one to monitor wayward people as well.
Cat people (rolling my eyes)
The new owner is more than just selfish. She's not fit to be a cat owner. Cats are like children to people like Woods. You don't take people's children. Cats are not property.
cat people, indeed. my neighbor has a cat (coincidentally, also named oliver) who enjoys spraying all over my front door every few days. thanks gothamist for the fabulous idea--i'm gonna get me a net and catch that bastard and off to petco adoption day i go!
another reason not to buy a cat : open windows
K23 is typical of the many pathetic cat owners who are so riduculously invested in the lives of their feline charges that they lose all sense of proportion. She's no doubt some mid-forties Carrie-wannabe, living in her studio in the E.80s, watching Seinfeld reruns while ingesting tub after tub of Haagen Dazs with her beloved dander shedder on her ample lap, wondering why no man will come anywhere near her.
Lookie here all you cat girls wondering why you're all still single as your ovaries prepare to shrivel into raisins. All straight men are allergic to cats. That's right. All of them. If a man isn't allergic to cats, he's gay. Want a man? Dumb the kitty. The world will be better for it
I'll say this nicely so that the censor police won't delete me again: the owner is ultimately responsible for the welfare of his/her cat. If the cat had been picked up by the ASPCA, its fate would have been far worse. To blame the person adopting the cat when she felt had done it out of the kindness of her heart is wrong. She is not a pet-sitting service. I imagine she invested alot of thought and emotion before eventually adopting this cat, and to snatch it away from her is unfair. Again, the original owner is ultimately responsible for the fate of the cat. If the cat had wandered into someone's yard, and a dog would have mutilated it, would you still be cheering this irresponsible owner?
Please find the case Woods v KittyKind via Dogpile.com. It clearly tells you what happened and the correct outcome of the story.
The woman went out of town and left the cat with a friend. Cat ran out of house. Cat is a Russian Blue (pedigree) Someone bought it to KittyKind. KittyKind adopted cat out without trying to find owner. After a legal dispute during which the woman who adopted cat knew nothing about what was going on, the judge ordered KittyKind to return cat to Original owner.
Read the article in its completion.