Poll: Should it be legal to shoot feral cats??

[Kestrel]

Art,

Have you gotten to witness an owl capture a feral cat? Now that's something I would like to see. Those owls are efficient.

There should be no question as to shooting feral cats - get rid of them. When I was younger and deer hunted on an uncle's farm, he told me to shoot any dog I saw out there. Lots of feral/wild dogs chasing deer, as well as hunting dogs from some irresponsible hunters that he had warned over and over about turning their dogs loose on his farm to run deer. He told me to shoot the dog and if it has a collar, cut it off and throw it in the creek.

 

[Art Eatman]

No, I've not had the chance to see "Old Hush Wing" at work.

I spent a lot of my early years around my grandparents' farm/ranch, and then in my teens my parents bought the place next door.

Maybe it's all the experiences of those outdoor years that have led to my puzzlement about how people can get so emotionally exercised in favor of feral cats and dogs over native wildlife.

To me, the idea of spending money on a feral cat to neuter it and then return it to the wild is just pretty close to evil-- from the standpoint of what I consider to be a waste of one's earnings and a general ignorance of wildlife reality.

Art

 

[Dale Taylor]

I guess, I'm "evil". Are gun owners evil as some say?? [email protected]

 

[JohnKSa]

You're not any more evil than the next guy. Just mistaken.

And that's not surprising. Unless you've made an effort to research this topic, it's likely that everything you've been exposed to up until now has driven you toward your current point of view on this topic. Your view is common and popular but wrong.

 

[Art Eatman]

Dale, I guess it goes back to the way I was raised, as I said. I pretty much grew up outdoors, watching what I now call the interrelationships in nature. (Didn't use such high-falutin' words when I was a kid.) Now in my older years, my joke is that I have spent more time outdoors watching and hunting than most people have in being upright and breathing.

I value native wildlife over introduced species of predators. I surely don't see where that could at all be wrong. To me, those who value an introduced predator over native species are wrong. I see no rational justification for that view. Now, being wrong out of ignorance is tolerable; it can be cured.

If somebody continues to hold to an idea after having it explained why the idea is wrong, with factual and rational reasoning having been provided, I begin to think in terms of wilful, deliberate wrong on the part of that person. Wilful, deliberate wrong, to me, is edging right up alongside of "evil".

Anyhow, that's how I got to where I got.

Releasing house cats into the wild is different only in degree, not kind, from the inadvertent release of rats from sailing ships onto south Pacific Ocean islands, where in some instances entire bird colonies were eradicated. People with any pretense to understanding of, knowledge of, environmental relationships are supposed to understand this sort of thing and know better.

Art

 

[Cosmoline]

I love cats, but the wild ones can do enormous amounts of damage to the ecosystem, from destroying songbird populations to spreading illness. They're extremely effective hunters. True wild dogs are far more rare. Most of the time, folks who shoot dogs are shooting someone's dog that got loose. Thouth they're bigger than cats, they have a much harder time making it in the wild. Dogs just like to run, esp. when they get in groups. They'll run for miles, and folks seeing them think "wild dogs!"

I'd think twice before killing dogs. Up here the owners may end up returning fire.

 

[dakotasin]

and they make fine targets!

 

[Kestrel]

Remember that the brown tree snake, released onto Guam, has practically eradicated all bird life there. It, too, was a non-native predator that ruined the system. The snakes are all over the island and they can't get rid of them. I saw a show on TV once, that showed trees and foliage that once were alive with the sounds of birds, were now silent. It was very stark.

These cats can also upheave a system very quickly, if allowed to go unchecked. And remember, they breed like rabbits...

 

[Art Eatman]

As a generality, dogs aren't a problem unless they gather into a pack, and size is definitely a factor. However, town dogs near the edge of the town/city can and will attack and kill sheep or goats, as a co-worker of mine discovered.

The owner of one of the dogs went through the, "Oh, MY dog wouldn't do that!" He changed his mind, seeing the bloody mouth of his dead dog, lying next to one of the ten dead sheep...

There's a pack of feral dogs which has been around the Terlingua area for several years. They've been seen pulling down a buck. They were driven off from pulling down a colt. A local, hiking near her home, had enough lead to get into the house before she was pulled down. A local chant is, "Go, lions, go!"

Art

 

[Dale Taylor]

My grandfather told me 60 years ago, don't shoot anything you won't eat unless your life is in danger or in a war. Still good advice. I don't like grove rats, cats kill them and eat them. I haven't eaten rats since survival school where snakes and buzzards were delicasy. If cats didn't kill the rats I'd be over run. Don't shoot what you won't eat. There should be no joy in killing. [email protected]

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, Dale, about the only "always" I know of is "Don't lie, cheat or steal." Sure, the view of not killing except for eating is reasonable, but it's no "always".

Out in the boonies, skunks and rattlesnakes are no problem to anybody. A raccoon in one's chicken house is a different story. A rabid animal anywhere near where people are is also a different story: Who's NOT gonna kill such an animal? And, is anybody gonna eat the meat of a rabid critter? And that's why I go off on these "always" tangents.

I dunno. I guess I spent just too many years outdoors, and spent many years brain-picking on the "bug and bunny" environmental biologists to deal with the views of those raised on Salter and Disney. Those two people are probably the worst enemies of wildlife we've ever had around to influence us.

Sure, as a kid I loved "Bambi". But even as a kid I knew it was a story; it's not a documentary. Same for Disney's stuff. The lion will lie down with the lamb, sure enough--but only the lion will get up.

And folks who allow non-native predators into an ecosystem are doing great harm. It is a personal responsibility for people to hit the delete key on the harm they or some other person has done.

Art

 

[Dale Taylor]

Art, I agree "don't lie cheat or steal". [email protected]

 

[1911 guy]

I somewhat agree

about the not killing thing. I agree that it's not good to kill for no purpose, but a legitimate purpose may be meat, the rabid animal, or to stop excess predation as is caused by uncontrolled cats. They are one of the few animals that will kill simply for "fun" with no intention of eating their prey. That is the reason bird and small critter populations suffer so much from them. So, in my line of reasoning, killing them is not puposeless.

 

[JohnKSa]

My grandfather told me 60 years ago, don't shoot anything you won't eat unless your life is in danger or in a war. Still good advice.

No, it's very poor advice and also VERY simplistic/poorly thought out. The fact that you don't understand why this is true is very revealing.

1. If the advice were well thought through, it would say "...don't KILL anything..." Clearly there's no moral difference between killing something with a bullet as opposed to using a trap, a knife, poison, or a spear.

2. If the advice were well thought out, it would differentiate between killing animals and killing humans. Clearly there is a huge moral difference between killing a person and killing an animal. Obviously, your grandfather wasn't telling you that it was all right to kill a person if you were going to eat him, nor was he telling you it was all right to wantonly kill a game animal and let it go to waste simply because you were in a war. The idea that one can or should use a single rule for determining the morality of killing both humans and animals is absolute folly.

3. Killing animals (whatever the method) is often necessary and moral even when one does not intend to eat them. Mouse traps, insect poisons, and antibiotics are clearly not immoral and are just as clearly necessary in some cases. Reducing overpopulations of various living things is sometimes required and the most humane and efficient method is often to kill the excess population.

 

[Dale Taylor]

Exept Mr. Eatman you are all hiding behind an alias. Shame. [email protected]

 

[Matt G]

Hell, Mr. Taylor-- You want to know who we are, just ask.

My name is Matt Guest. I live in Fort Worth, Texas. Email me or PM me and I'll give you my home telephone number. Hiding? Most of us are willing to be up front is you ask for information. Some post under pseudonymns for their own reasons. Very few are hiding, however.

As for not killing what you don't eat, I think that's pretty simplistic. I'll kill any rodent in or about my house. I'll kill over-abundant introduced species, including grackles, feral cats, and rabbits in Australia. (okay, I haven't gotten Down Under yet, but you get the point.) I'll kill mosquitos that bite, june bugs that buzz and bother and make messes, and chiggars and fire ants (another non-native species) by the millions-- just because they annoy me. An intoduced pest that I DO eat when I kill it is wild hog.

I enjoy hunting. I take pleasure in it. I cannot claim that I profit (usually) from hunting-- I spend more on gear, time off, travel, licenses, etc than I save on meat. I am a predator, and I do spill blood. I absolutely make every effort to avoid unneccessary suffering, even to mangy old feral cats. They get the cleanest shot I can make. I do NOT eat them.

I'm curious-- what should the city pounds do with the hundreds of tons of cats and dogs that nobody wants each year? What ends up being done with the tons of fuzzy cat and dog flesh is to KILL them humanely, and then BURN the bodies. This is done because it has to be done. If more people would spay and neuter their pets, it wouldn't have to be done. But across this planet, people fail to, and someone else has to clean up the mess. You don't want to. Okay. Just don't judge too harshly those that will.

 

[JohnKSa]

The fact that I do or do not post my full name has nothing to do with the validity of my opinions. Is there something relevant to this discussion that you would like to know about me? Or is this merely an attempt to deflect attention from the topic of the thread?

I use this name for all the posting I do on the web. If you want to know more about my opinions, you may do a search of this site, or even a search of the entire internet search. I've posted a few thousand times on this site and I'll bet you'll get around 2000 hits on the general web if you search on my username. You'll find out far more about me than I could possibly find out about you by simply knowing your full name.

 

[1911 guy]

Mr Taylor

I would assume is resorting to smear tactics because his ideology is not holding up and refuses to rethink his position. My name is Chris Garlich, in Warren, Oh. So much for hiding, eh? If there is any more serious discussion by Mr. Taylor, count me in. Until then, go mess with someone who will rise to your bait and get all hot and bothered. Most of us have got better things to do and discuss.

 

[Art Eatman]

Mr. Taylor, I gotta agree with 1911 guy. When one's personal opinion is shown to be incorrect in what I see as a reasonably rational and logical fashion, ad hominem attacks are not at all rational rebuttal.

My ideas and reasoning are the same, whether I register here as myself or via my "handle" of Desertrat.

En passant, I note that some people on Internet boards are vulnerable to searches as to their true identities, thinking of either some sort of "revenge" or identity theft. I am not vulnerable in that fashion. Those who feel such needs are free to use such nomenclature as they wish.

After all, arguments are based on correct content, not source. And nobody here can be sure that "Dale Taylor" is a real name--not that I, personally, care one way or the other.

, Art

 

[Dale Taylor]

Dale Taylor is my real name. I'm not afraid or "evil".

 

[kbheiner7]

I favor the live-trapping of feral cats.

They make great training aids for our hounds! They don't put up much of a fight though.

 

[svtruth]

Songbirds

Do feral cats really take a lot of songbirds? We've had lots of in/outside cats and they bring home (or used to in their younger days) small mammals, snakes, frogs, very few birds.

 

[Matt G]

Those aren't feral cats. Your cats are fed daily. Feral cats hunt all day long for their food. It's the difference between having lions at the zoo and having them wander loose through your city.

 

[JohnKSa]

Dale Taylor is my real name. I'm not afraid or "evil".

Mr. Taylor,

That is your fourth post in a row which fails to address the topic of the thread. I have no authority, so I'm not reprimanding you, just making an observation.

I would be interested in discussing feral animals, the effects of cats on local animal populations, or even your grandfather's advice further, but it's pretty hard to do if you keep trying to change this into a discussion regarding the ramifications of internet anonymity.

 

[Art Eatman]

Good observation.

Mr. Taylor, the whole issue of nomenclature is irrelevant, as has been said more than once. The only matter of importance is the content of one's argument.

svtruth, I haven't gone back to check, but isn't the Wisconsin study referred to early on? To recap, a feral cat is reputed to kill some 100 songbirds a year. Watching "just a house cat" types around my wife's home here in south Georgia, that's believable. That's less than three per week, which seems to be a reasonable effort and success rate. The estimate from the study was that there are some one million feral cats in the state of Wisconsin.

If the study is anywhere near correct, that's 100 milion songbirds a year.

So: Even if the feral cat population estimate is off by a factor of ten, it's still ten million songbirds.

The crux of the matter is that the feral cats are a non-native, introduced predator species doing great harm to the native bird population. In dealing with the great numbers involved, there is no other option but to destroy feral cats as the opportunity arises. Certainly neuter-and-release accomplishes nothing; neutering does not remove hunger pangs--for food, anyway. Who knows? Possibly the absence of concupiscence allows more time for hunting?

Art