Is Having a Bird Feeder Forbidden as Feeding Stray Pets or Animals

My question involves small claims court in the state of: Washington. we are trying to define "straying pets or animals". Our ex- landlord is now saying that our bird feeder for gold finch, junkos, chickadees & various small birds was breaking our contract by stating that we were feeding "stray pets or animals". We need to define exactly what that means, and do wild birds fall into this category.

"Pet" is defined as:

"a domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure and treated with care and affection."

A "stray pet" obviously is just the opposite.

"Animal" is defined as:

"a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."

That certainly includes birds.

So it would appear that you did, indeed, feed "straying pets or animals" in violation of your lease.

Perhaps you'll be kind enough to explain why this matter involves small claims court. Who sued who for what, and why? Back story is important if you want some helpful comments.

I would see the term "straying" as modifying "pets" -- as in, you can't feed domestic animals that aren't yours; but the prohibition also extends to animals, and birds are animals.

I would like to know if the lease allows pets because if it does then you wouldn't be able to feed them because they are animals but not strays.

"stray pets or animals" I think the conjunction or makes the adjective stray also apply to animals. You can't feed stray pets or stray animals.

Stray defined as:

Quote:

---

having no home or having wandered away from home

---

Now if you buy that, then birds and perhaps squirrels are Ferae Naturae and are not stray pets or stray animals.:friendly_wink:

The plain language would also preclude our feeding ourselves. We too are animals.

I would probably call my local Animal Control and ask if they consider wild birds to be stray, estray, or straying animals. I imagine they will say no. I can't find anything that categorizes wild birds as stray/estray. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, mules, goats, jackasses and those animals considered to be "livestock", yes. Wild birds? No. I'll be interested to see how this plays out...

Quote:

---

Quoting Catmad

---

I would probably call my local Animal Control and ask if they consider wild birds to be stray, estray, or straying animals. I imagine they will say no. I can't find anything that categorizes wild birds as stray/estray. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, mules, goats, jackasses and those animals considered to be "livestock", yes. Wild birds? No. I'll be interested to see how this plays out...

---

We're talking about a plain English word. The place you look for a definition of "straying" or "animal" is a dictionary.

Quote:

---

Quoting Catmad

---

I would probably call my local Animal Control and ask if they consider wild birds to be stray, estray, or straying animals. I imagine they will say no. I can't find anything that categorizes wild birds as stray/estray. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, mules, goats, jackasses and those animals considered to be "livestock", yes. Wild birds? No. I'll be interested to see how this plays out...

---

Who "considers" what is irrelevant.

I posted dictionary definitions that carry more weight than what anybody "considers."

The point of discussion is whether stray modifies just pets or "pets or animals" together. If it only modifies pets, the whole clause is apparently redundant because saying you can't feed animals includes stray pets. If stray modifies the entire pets or animals conjunction, then one could argue wild animals are not STRAY. Stray refers to those who have wandered from their place. Wild birds outside are in their place not stray.

I think the argument that feeding wild animals would be permitted -- that the landlord doesn't want you to attract other people's pets or livestock to the property, but would be fine with your putting out red meat to feed a pack of local wolves -- is inconsistent with both the plain intention and clear language of the clause.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I think the argument that feeding wild animals would be permitted -- that the landlord doesn't want you to attract other people's pets or livestock to the property, but would be fine with your putting out red meat to feed a pack of local wolves -- is inconsistent with both the plain intention and clear language of the clause.

---

That is a little over the top. We are speaking of wild song birds not a pack of wolves. And the plain intention of the plain language is not clear. Not according to the interpretation in the law.

When you declare that a tenant can feed wild animals without violating the lease provision that would mean all wild animals, not just birds.

What "intepretation in the law" are you looking at that makes the language unclear?

Whenever a court looks at the language of a statute or contract or lease, they look at it in the plain language. So if you want to look at "stray pets and animals" you see that you cannot feed animals or perhaps stray animals. That is pretty clear but it would be ridiculous that a lease would state that you cannot feed animals. So you must interpret that to mean stray animals. We are animals, our pets are animals.

And if you want a technical interpretation of the law as to who owns or has a possessory interest in the animals (the birds) that are Ferae Naturae , it is the landlord who owns the property. I can't see any argument that says that wild birds are stray pets.

No, that is not correct. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that such a clause prohibits feeding any stray pets or wild animals. To the extent that the lease permits tenants to have pets, the language can be easily harmonized -- you can't feed somebody else's pets or wild animals, but you can feed your own (non-straying) pets. What would be absurd is to pretend that "animals" does not include "wild animals", or to pretend that "animals" includes only some categories of animals but not others based on... what would it be... wishful thinking?

If your best defense of your position is that wild birds are not stray pets, quite obviously nobody here has ever disagreed. However, they are wild animals, just like the pack of wolves you contend could not be fed under the governing lease term.

If you are advising the tenant to go to court and argue that the birds aren't wild animals because any time they perch on the landlord's real estate they become the landlord's property, well... it will make a great "You wouldn't believe what this guy argued in court today..." war story for the judge and any lawyers who are present. And guess what -- your argument would also apply to a pack of wolves.

I made my argument and I acknowledge that your knowledge is beyond mine. So I leave you with the last word.:friendly_wink:

Please don't encourage the crazy bird lady into thinking she is right. She can go to the park and feed birds.

I think the OP is a troll who incited an argument between two of our regulars and is likely sitting on the sideline laughing.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

I think the OP is a troll who incited an argument between two of our regulars and is likely sitting on the sideline laughing.

---

When is a bird not a bird? (Sorry, just can't help myself.)

http://www.law.indiana.edu/instructi...on/Ojibway.pdf

Quote:

---

Quoting L-1

---

When is a bird not a bird? (Sorry, just can't help myself.)

http://www.law.indiana.edu/instructi...on/Ojibway.pdf

---

That pretty much sums up the legal system sometimes. Maybe OP can cite the case in her court answer.

I guess I missed the mark on trying to be somewhat absurd. Didn't you see the :friendly_wink: in my initial post?

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

That pretty much sums up the legal system sometimes. Maybe OP can cite the case in her court answer.

I guess I missed the mark on trying to be somewhat absurd. Didn't you see the :friendly_wink: in my initial post?

---

I didn't miss it. I think the whole thread is funny.