Originally posted by sirrahved
Why not go talk to the owner, and tell your intentions?
It's a noble idea, but is based on the assumption that the owner will be open-minded about taking advice, and not get aggressive. If THAT were to happen, and THEN Gary took the cat, the owner could turn around and say "I TOLD that person not to touch my cat" whereas if the cat is treated first, THEN an angry owner gets invlolved, the situation is still bad, but at least:
1) the cat has been treated and
2) Gary cannot be blamed for going against someones express instructions.

I am very concerned about leaving things to the "correct authorities" - who knows what time and resources they have available. Would they view a cat with an untreated injury as "abused"??? Maybe not.

There was a thread recently about a dog in Dog General - this dog is living in terrible conditions, but because the owners are providing the minimum shelter etc required by law, the authorities can do nothing, even though they really want to help. In that situation I would be prepared to take the risk and "rescue" the animal myself.

I also recently stopped at the side of the road when I saw a group of teenagers surrounding a cat on the pavement. The cat had been hit by a car, it's back legs and back were injured, and it was dragging itself around by it's front legs trying to get away from these boys, who were poking it with sticks. I called our shelter, they came within 10 minutes and the cat was painlessly helped to the RB. THIS ALL TOOK PLACE IN FULL VIEW OF A POLICE PATROL. When I asked them why they hadn't intervened they laughed and drove away.


When my husband and I were trying to decide whether or not to move to the Middle East, he was given a very good piece of advice...

"IT IS BETTER TO REGRET THE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE, THAN THE THINGS YOU HAVEN'T DONE"