I always said domestic cats were only good for target practice!

Remove all ads!

It mostly depends on where you live. I don't mean area of the country, but your environment as in city, suburban or rural. If he lives on a several hundred acre ranch, and his closest neighbor is a few miles away, it is probably completely legal. I have no idea about the specifics of DW's living area, but just from the description he's giving of the wildlife and property, I'm guessing he doesn't live on a 0.2 acre lot in the suburbs.

If he's like me, and his closest neighbor is around 50 feet away, it is most definitely illegal. I live on a corner. The guy behind me is about 50 feet away from me, the neighbor to my left is also about 50 feet away from me, and there is a house across the street from the front of the house, and a house across the street from the right side of the house. For me there is no where that I could shoot anything where there wouldn't be a reasonable chance of the bullet going on to someone else's property, and I'd be charged with reckless endangerment.

[ April 15, 2005, 20:08: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

For the record, I have more land than the average person, and I do not live in what people would think of as the city proper, but my area was recently incorporated, so the discharge of a firearm (as well as burning tree trimmings and shooting off fireworks) is against the law. This is forcing me to either consider a high-powered pellet gun (which aren't as effective or accurate, and could lead to my injuring a cat rather than a clean kill) or resorting to the capture and stake out for the coyote methods that I have mentioned before. I much prefer the instant death method, but I have to admit that civilization is creeping into my area, and I would have had to change tactics soon any way. Luckily, I haven't seen any cats in my back yard since last year anyway, so hopefully it won't be an issue anytime soon.

 

One in a while for me is fifteen minutes three times a day. I have owned a dog my entire life so I know, I've also had several cats and allways kept them inside for the most part only letting them out in a leash.

Why should I advocate a natural approach? If you want to prevent your cat from being shot you keep it inside and the propability of getting your cat shot if it runs out is much less than it running to a road and being overrun by a car, neither case would be much fun.

 

Blackthorne: I am pretty sure you don't need a license to shoot "pest" animals like rats, gophers, crows, squirrels, or the like. Besides, it is obvious that you do not live in the south, where a little detail like not having a license does not stop a person from shooting whatever he wants. I live out in the country and I always hear my neighbors, I guess, shooting at things at night. I know I lost at least one dog to these a**holes. My dad and I trap and shoot, with a BB gun, squirrels because they keep breaking our bird feeders and are generally nuisances, and we have never gotten a hunting license. My point is, not having a license will not stop someone from shooting your pet and then claiming they thought it was feral, after all, collars can fall off, people make mistakes, and more like that. That's not to say something shouldn't be done. These animals deserve humane deaths, maybe trapping and euthanizing in problem areas, or neutering them, though that still runs the risk of a rabid cat infecting a child or pet. I think if this law passes, there must be some restrictions.

 

Why does a creature that isn't human deserve humane treatment?

 

You've got it backwards. *We're* the ones who should be being humane. We're the humans - it's a case of living up to our name.

 

I suppose...but, while I'm quite hypocritical about certain things, I'm not going to be hypocritical about humane treatment of animals: I eat a lot of beef and pork. I am familiar with the process of industrialized slaughter that provides me with beef and pork, and, well, it ain't humane.

I can't demand other people be humane to some critters when I directly support a system that isn't humane to others. *shrug*

 

There used to be a cat in our garden, and it ate our birds. So I chased it away if I happened to see it. One day, I poked it with a broom, and it ran away. It hasn't come back since, and we now have all manner of wild animals living in and around our house. There is also a sparrowhawk, who might also eat the birds/ mice/ hedgehogs, but thanks to our giant hedge, he is far less of a threat than a cat.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cats
Species threatened by feral cats as, "introduced predators"
The Bilby
Eastern Eared Bandicoot
Brush Tailed Bettong

Incidently, after looking through all of that, I'm very surprised that no Australians took part in this thread. During the 90's their army was deployed to thin out the cat population:
CNN: Australian proposal would wipe wild cats from continent

 

Feral cats should be dealt with humanely by the local goverment, it's just asking for trouble to allow people to shoot cats willy-nilly. People love their pets and it's not a great leap of imagination to believe there are people out there who would get their revenge by attacking peoples families.

I've never known a problem with cat's mess, perhaps people aren't aware that bird droppings are generally more dangerous to children. Sand pits have been mentioned as being used as a toilet - simple solution is to get a cover for when it's not being used. There are also a number of different plants on the market that act as natural repellents if you have an interest in gardening. And rather than shoot them, use a hose pipe or water pistol. OK they might not get the message immediately, but has the bonus that your children can use it as well.

 

So its ok to exterminate a species as long as you're just one of a handful of factors invovled.

And the article that started the discussion is from Wisconsin, where, evidently, cats have not lived alongside man for hundreds of years. The Australian examples are just as relevant as central Europe, as its an example provided to juxtapose, and shed light on the article, just as your Central Europe suggestions were.

Its pretty clear to me that no matter what is dug up or pointed out, there will be no mutual understanding on this topic.

I do understand that wiping out a feral cat population is as realistic as trying to shoot all of the rats in the NYC subway system (there I go with the rat comparision again). It just ain't gonna happen. Giving people the right to exterminate them from their own property though, doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me.

 

Whether the law allows it or not, it takes a certain type of person to even want to, or even be able to do it...someone who must believe that animal life is pretty much meaningless and the notion of "property" is only important if it's HIS. It's quite sad.

 

As sad as it is, there are PLENTY of people who wouldn't flinch at killing a cat if the law was passed in my state.

 

That's just too funny. I know it's serious, but at the same time funny. They could try a few more ways wiping out the rabbits, come to similar results, and in a few years we'll have a population of ultra-resistant, terminator-style bunnies running all over Australia.

 

Tal,

I thought his comment was tongue-in-cheek. I think he is being sarcastic, but maybe I just misinterpreted it.

To answer your question, yes about 200 years ago Wisconsin was settled. There had been trapping going on there since the 1600s, but I doubt many trappers had cats as pets. Serious settlement of Wisconsin began prior to the Louisiana purchase, in 1803, but later than the intial settlements on the east coast obviously.

 

Tal, did you catch the show Preverjeno? They were discusing the issue of pets being killed or injured by guns, and more likely for fun than trespassing. Seems that trespassing is just an excuse for these people to go and shoot something.