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

Remove all ads!

A cats nature is to be independant so they pretty much go where they please. You can control a dog easily, but it takes a special person to have full control of a cat. Besides I don't think its right to kill a cat just because it enters your garden, would you expect the same with wild birds or children?

 

Cesard,

No, I do not kill birds for entering my garden (back when I used to have one). If I had something that I was growing that birds endangered (strawberries for example), I would cover it with netting.

As far as children, children don't crap in my lawn and children’s sandboxes, they don't kill the squirrels and birds that live in the trees, and I can have them arrested for trespassing and inconvenience their parents to the point that they keep their brats off of my property. (By the way, I had rock salt shot at me when for trespassing when I was a kid, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for that argument). There is no way I can get Animal Control to do their jobs in my area, so I take care of the problem myself.

Sorry, but if you can't be responsible in your ownership of your cat, then don't have one.

[ April 14, 2005, 16:07: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Killing cats? These beautyful beats? Never. A sacrileg! My stance on that issue is probably best described as 'egyptian'

 

@Darkwolf

If you were my neighbour, I would skin you alive. What you are doing is killing just for fun and this is outrageous.

 

That is funny, I kill nuisance cats, and some think that it is so outrageous that they feel justified to threaten to torture me.

 

Darkie, why are we agreeing so often these days?

There's a difference between a feral cat and a pet that happens to get out every now and then. I would hope that the two situations are treated differently. Even with a license to remove nuisance animals, someone who knowingly shoots a pet should be prosecuted.

Now a so-called "pet" that's owned by an irresponsible twerp who can't/won't take care of it properly... that's the animal that's going to get caught in this dilemma. Unfortunately, I don't see a way around that.

 

Then tell me what are the cats doing that gives you the justification to execute them? Do they **** on your garden? And if they do, so what? Does this gives you the right to kill harmless animals?

[snip]

[Warning pending.] -Tal

[ April 14, 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

I don't think that declawing a cat and keeping it indoors is taking care of a cat! Cats by their nature like to wander and be free. Its cruel to keep them confined or on a leash. We need them, more than they need us.

That would be like taking an elephant and containing them in a small garden.

If you want cats out of your garden, you can buy some safe organic sprays, gels etc or fill a glass bottle up with water (the reflection of the sun annoys cats).

Killing someone's pet does not make you more of a man.

 

The thing I find appalling about this mode of thought, is that you think its perfectly reasonable for your pets to freely roam on other people's property. You buy a pet, and its everyone else's problem, because its "cruel" to keep it inside?

Is it also cruel to neuter it? Cats by their nature, in addition to wanting to, "roam and be free" also like to, "copulate and reproduce."

 

Personally I feel that pets should be watched at all times and never ever wander free, if it happens to be their "nature" then that's just too bad. We've had indoor cats for several years and it's not like they're dying or even miserable.

What I still don't understand is the trouble in these cats? Are they really that common? Or is it that people just think it's annoying that an animal tresspasses their terretory? Well in any case I don't have a very strong oppinion in this thing since I think troublesome animals like rodents can be killed and I don't see the cats as much more different, just because some people happen to find them "cute" and nice pets do not make them any different from other troublesome animals.

Shooting the animal on sight I don't support but if I saw it crapping in the sandbox or something similar I would be all for it, the fact that it might do so does not make shooting it justified. Of course this would be impossible to supervice.

 

Wow. Someone here is kind of... sick.

If 'feral' cats do become a threat to other species I am for checking them in - much as I love cats. But that must not be done by just anyone who happens to like using guns and finds himself a cat. A situation far too tempting for sadists and their cruelties. Animals already have to suffer too much from certain people as it is. Just look above.
If at all its a task for trained personel of enviromental departments (or whatever its called in English), hunters respectively. They will see to it that the cats wont suffer much. Hopefully.

Aside from my opinion that this idea is purest rubbish there is also the potential of conflict between people.
Will one neighour sit idly by and enjoy the sound of his cats being shot by the other? Perhaps not even his own cat, but free roaming ones he feeds occaisonally. I know I wouldnt. I would get back at trigger-happy eventually, in whatever manner. A situation that might lead to harsh violence real quick.

 

Tal, , you didn't say a single reasonable thing in either of those posts. No civic responsiblity, no pet owner responsibility, just, "I have a cat, and you have to deal with it, because its how cats are."

How about I buy a couple of rats, and you know they like to reproduce and roam around. Pretty soon the whole neighborhood is infested with them, but hey, you know, that's just how rats are, it would be cruel to not allow them to breed in your walls and basement.

The guy mentioned in the article has a bird feeder, he's saying the uncontrolled cats are stalking his birds. He has every right to do what he needs to in order to keep them out of his yard.

I'm certainly not a, "cat hater" I just don't want other people's pets on my property (dogs, rats, alligators and orangutans included). Then again, I've never shot an animal, but a well placed snowball or water hose on occasion gets the point across.

 

I’m picking out this quote not to respond to anyone specifically but rather because there is this common theme running throughout the thread.

Here is the argument as I understand it:

Feral cats are “subsidized predators.” Due to the relationship between cats and humans, cats enjoy certain benefits when they become wild that other species do not enjoy. This leads to ecological and health dangers. Since this is a “man made” problem, man has a duty to attempt to correct the problem.

What are the ecological and health dangers?

Feral cats as subsidized predators can have extremely large populations. As a result of these large populations, feral cats are a danger to naturally wild species including endangered species. The University of Wisconsin’s study found that approximately 7.8 million wild birds are killed by feral cats.

According to Dr. David Duff, a PhD at the University of Hawaii, feral cats have already entirely destroyed all remaining members of one endangered bird species. According to endangered species protection groups in California, feral cats are wiping out members of some endangered species at an alarming rate. One report that I’ve read is that one of the species (whose name I can’t recall) travels in migratory groups. Feral cats can wipe out an entire group in a day or two.

Feral cats also are a health risk as carriers of zoonotic diseases such as rabies, toxoplasmosis, ringworm, and bartonellosis. As subsidized predators, the large numbers of feral cats present a danger to naturally wild species to which these diseases can easily spread.

Feral cats may pose some risk to humans. In Oregon groups of feral cats have been found with salmonella which not only creates a danger to other animals but presents a risk to humans.

So, that’s the argument for why feral cats present a danger. It isn’t just a case of, “it’d be fun to kill cats, I don’t like them.” That isn’t to say that everyone agrees with what I’ve written above. I’ve read in one veterinary magazine where representatives of feral cat protection groups say they don’t kill any birds. I am personally satisfied though that enough people from various Universities with various specialties have studied the issue and decided there are dangers inherent in large feral cat populations, to justify the position that there is some warranted concern over the cat population. And that isn’t to say that the proposed open season is the best way to address the issue, but I do think there is an issue.

My father is a veterinarian and the feral cat folks of his state capture feral cats and bring them to him to be spayed or neutered. He performs the surgery and then clips the ear of the cat so that it can be identified as having been spayed/neutered in the future. There is some evidence that these programs are having some successful impact but others argue that these programs will not adequately address the issues. Others argue that these programs are inhumane because they re-release the animals and they consider this to be re-abandonment and so they are seeking to legal recourse against veterinarians who agree to help these programs (the vets agree to the work for cost or for free and absorb the costs themselves.) On the other hand, numerous people say the idea of re-domesticating millions of feral cats is implausible when we already have difficulty finding people to adopt entirely domesticated cats (and some argue that the vast majority of the cats will never be re-domesticated once they reach a certain age in part due to their independent natures.)

If the feral cats are not able to be domesticated, and if an unchecked population does create a hazard (both propositions may be denied, but I personally am persuaded by them) then the options are as I see them: 1) do nothing; 2)see if the spread of neuter/spay and release programs address the issue sufficiently; 3)seek some way of actively eradicating the feral cats; or 4)there are other ideas for controlling the spread, but most of them haven’t struck me as feasible – for example, some folks want to capture them all and create a massive fenced in preserve; there may be other more realistic options to be considered though.

Wisconsin has chosen one way of effectuating number 3. I’m not sure that their means are the most desirable way of addressing the problem, or even that number 3 is the way things have to go, but I do think there is a greater concern with the feral cat population than some people may recognize.

 

First off, I have a 6-foot tall privacy fence around by back yard. It keeps dogs out nicely. It does nothing to stop armadillos, cats, rats, opossums, and raccoons. I rarely see any of these, with the exception of cats, in my back yard, but when any of them make a nuisance out of themselves, the coyotes will soon be having an easy meal. The reason isn't because I get my jollies off of it, it is because I have children and I try to keep the back yard as safe and sanitary as I can for them. When I lived in the mountains, and I did not have children or a fenced in yard, I used to watch the raccoons play in my yard, but I still killed free roaming cats as they fall under a different rule in my mind. They are not natural to the ecosystem, have no innate fear of humans, and they kill off many animals that are necessary to the ecosystem, creating an imbalance. The line between feral cats and pet cats is relatively small, especially when you compare it to other animals, such a canines. I have never seen a feral dog in my area (unless you count coyotes, and as far as I know, they predate European settlement of America). I have had bobcats in my back yard, and I didn't shoot them, as they are a natural part of the ecosystem, and don't overpopulate and endanger the balance of the ecosystem, I only see them once or twice a year, and they are gone by sunrise, so they are not a threat to my children (I also have never seen evidence of one using my kids sand box as a lavatory).

Finally, it is the responsibility of pet owners to properly care for their pets. This includes providing a healthy environment for them to live in. Just as you don't keep an Australian Shepard (dog breed that needs to have a lot of space to roam) in an apartment, and you don't keep large fish in a 10-gallon (40 liter) aquarium, you shouldn't keep cats unless you can provide them with what they need to live happy healthy lives. It is not your neighbor's responsibility to provide your cat with the land it needs to roam in to be happy. It is about taking personal responsibility. There are large numbers of ponds and lakes in the south that have lost or had significant reductions in their natural inhabitants because people release tropical aquarium fish in them, wild dog packs that roam the outskirts of many US cities, attacking family pets, digging in garbage and killing wildlife, and feral cat problems addressed in the article. All these upset the natural balance, and all are because people wouldn't accept the responsibility that comes with ownership of these animals.

 

Exactly, and that is why pet cats should only know a life indoors just like dogs. Of course if you take an older cat you might be forced to let it wander around but if you buy a newborn cat as a responsible owner you should keep it inside.

 

I'd like to second Tal on this one. There's no reason you should be allowed to shoot cats. I don't even think agreed 'vermin' like rats and mice shouldn be shot with guns, but rather dealt with subtly with traps. Or cats.

But as for feral cats being killed, surely people are resourceful enough to keep them out of their own back garden? The bottle of water trick works at daytime and at night they shouldn't be a problem. You just need to make the place inhospitable to them, not make it the Garden of Swift Feline Death.

Darkwolf and Morgoroth: properly taking care of cats *involves* letting them out. I don't personally like cats - they tend to scratch me, and dogs are friendlier anyway - but see no reason they should be shot or shut inside all their lives. As for being upset indoors - look at the old idea of raising a baby in a giant box. It'd be healthy, and presumably happy with regular company etc. if it never knew there was an outside. But I don't see that it's right to keep that from them.

We get innumerable foxes and squirrels in our garden, who eat our paid-for birdseed, scare off the birds its meant for, and dig up most of our flowerbed. We wouldn't kill them, or have them killed if we had the choice. Rats, we would, and did. (They were in our shed; we didn't want to open the door to have a rat jump in our face from a shelf before we noticed it. So there we didn't really have the choice *not* to.)

There are plenty of alternatives to killing the feral cats, most of which would work better. If this law gets passed, then you'll have a coyote (or whatever) problem with all the cat meat readily available. You'd probably not find all the cats anyway, particularly in built-up areas, so they'll keep breeding even if you lower their numbers. That's without mentioning the number of 'innocent' cats that will get killed.

And Darkwolf: you pulled the wings off flies as a kid, didn't you? Though from the sounds of it you still do.

 

I have two cats I got from a local shelter. One was a kitten and is a house cat. The other was adult when I adopted and is miserable if she can't go out at least a little. I do not live in a city. There is little traffic outside. She survived before being brought to the shelter. She stays near the house. She knows were the food is and likes it. Why should I have to keep her inside because some neighbor doesn't like cats. There are no children for her to harm if teased by them. Leave her alone and she'll live you alone. She knows where her potty is.