Feral cats

[tetaelzbieta]

I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about the possibility that a law will be passed that will allow people to shoot feral (wild/stray) cats. Supporters argue that the cats spread disease and kill songbirds as well as other animals that can be hunted. Opponents argue that it's unnecessary violence and that there will inevitably be morons that will go around shooting cats that are pets, and there will be.

Personally I don't think the law is necessary. Yes, the cats spread disease, but so do scores of other animals, including humans! I can't imagine how that can be a valid case for the law. This proposal in Wisconsin has been gaining national media attention and it's really starting to heat up here.

[ReallyLove LOST]

:eek:

What the hell has this world come to.

How would one be able to know exactly if the cat is a stray or not? They really wouldn't. They'd probably end up shooting peoples pets more than stray cats. Either way, they shouldn't.

Grrrrr. This pisses me off.

[Nini]

They are starting to argue about that in Sweden too, and I think it's an horrible idea, like ReallyloveLost said, how could the tell which cat is stray and which are not? It's worse with rats, they should focus on that!! That's the most horrible idea ever thought of, and those who came up with is should be shot themselves! *walks away in anger*

[1 Lucky Texan]

Do you know how many feral cats are in Wisconsin? Millions! And they could just make it legal in rural countise. A lot of urban counties probably already have laws against hunting or even discharging a firearm. I DO think they should take a very close look at what they're about to do. Those cats are eating something right now. Sure, it's probably some songbirds and it would be a shame if some endangered species of songbird were killed off by wild cats. BUT, they also eat rodents - mostly mice, and there could very well be a 'backlash' or reduced crop harvests due to rodent loss if they actually manage to reduce the cat popuklation. Also, rodents carry Hanta viruses - not good.

I ahve mixed feelings about it - supposedly several other states have had laws like this for a long time - wonder how its working out for them?

Carl

[Pie]

I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about the possibility that a law will be passed that will allow people to shoot feral (wild/stray) cats. Supporters argue that the cats spread disease and kill songbirds as well as other animals that can be hunted. Opponents argue that it's unnecessary violence and that there will inevitably be morons that will go around shooting cats that are pets, and there will be.

Personally I don't think the law is necessary. Yes, the cats spread disease, but so do scores of other animals, including humans! I can't imagine how that can be a valid case for the law. This proposal in Wisconsin has been gaining national media attention and it's really starting to heat up here.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Ya know what? Too many cats? Fine. Ya don't like it? Fine. How bout passing a law that orders spaying and neutering? So many people are too lazy to take their cat to an ASPCA where they can get it done for FREE. Some people are just irresponsible. :rant:

[slackerwink]

It's a very moronic law because it focuses on violence in killing the strays. There are much better ways of catching the strays with humane traps that does not harm the animal at all. You can return the strays back to the animal shelter or a no-kill shelter.

[icyfirebubbles]

Wow..... thats the most retarded law I have ever heard of in my life....

How could anyone even think of that? I just don't understand!

:mad:

[Sirene]

Good grief.

Cats are not an animal that you can easily lock up indoors, especially if they are used to being outside for *any* period of time. How will whoever plans to kill off these strays be able to tell the difference between a stray and a housepet who happens to spend time outside? You can't say the difference is a collar, because there are housecats who spend time outdoors and it would be very dangerous for them to wear a collar, simply for the fact that you can't control their actions, and they could easily strangle themselves which is more suffering than lethal injection. (Although I have heard that lethal injection is equally drawn out)

I've been around cats my whole life, both stray and housebroken (for lack of a better word). And without fail, the ones that go hunting after birds and other rodents that people gripe about are the housebroken ones. I even lived with a woman once who had a cat once who killed more birds after he was declawed than before he underwent that surgery. No one could figure out how he did it either.

The cats that I have owned (I know they actually own their "owners" instead), have all started out as strays who otherwise would never have made it to the end of the week because they were so malnourished. Housecats come from somewhere and most are actually not purchased at the mall. I personally don't believe in buying pets from the pet store when you can save a life that is already on the line and they'll end up alot healthier than the storebought ones.

No offense, but I seriously think all these lawmakers have nothing better to do than see what kind of absurd laws they can come up with instead of doing anything about the current more pressing issues that they all turn a blind eye to. And people wonder where all their tax dollars go. Certainly not to anything that actually needs taken care of. Sorry but it irks me to no end how utterly stupid these politicians are that they think they know what's better for the general public than the general public does.

[Whit]

If they start doing this, I'm gonna want to shoot these people in the head. I wouldn't really but cats are my favorite animal and I can't ever imagine cats being shot. That's just sad! Cats who have owners are often outside and I would not want my cat in danger of being shot. Before my cat got cancer and was put down, he lived outside on warm days and he never wore a collar and that right there could have been dangerous for him. Poor cats...it's like those people who put them in glass jars. It breaks my heart.

[cemipi]

i think it's completely unnecessary. hunting animals that people have as pets is just disturbing to me. next thing they'll be shooting dogs.

[AdversePlaceboFX]

This isn't being proposed for the "sportsmen", the fine fur pelts, or the abundance of white meat. It seemingly boils down to which you like more: birds or feral cats. The conservative estimates (not estimates from Conservatives) are that there are over 1.4 million feral cats (1995 estimate - surely larger now) - and that these cats kill on average 28 times per year with 20% being birds. That's over 7.8 million birds per year. So now you have the save the birds group versus the save the feral cats group. Spaying/neutering isn't going to help much - they'll still kill.

Wisconsin is only looking for the least expensive method of bringing the population under control. This isn't for the local hunters - it's to make it legal for people who live in areas infested with them to kill them. I would bet on the fact that many do already.

[honeyrabbit321]

thay can't do that! some cats are nearly icstinct!
and the hunters will kill the animals, hang there bodies on the wall...the sickness will still be in the corpse(think again, maybe they should pass the law..hunters would die, like locke's fake father)

[1 Lucky Texan]

thay can't do that! some cats are nearly icstinct!
and the hunters will kill the animals, hang there bodies on the wall...the sickness will still be in the corpse(think again, maybe they should pass the law..hunters would die, like locke's fake father)

These 'cats' are housecats (like domestic cats) but they are born and completely nurtured only in the wild. (though often, they are fed by people). As opposed to an animal people may allow in their house and give a name and veterinary care. Thsink 'stray' dogs except housecats.

I have mixed emotions about the law - and really, its for the citizens of that State to decide. But I doubt the hunters could have the effect the lawmakers think. And even though some songbirds may be saved - there could be an increase in rodents.

Carl

[Pie]

Spaying/neutering isn't going to help much - they'll still kill.



If one has an un-neutered/unspayed cat or cats, and one lets the cat/cats roam freely outside, they are going to get pregnant and/or impregnant other cats, thus adding to the growing population. Millions of cats are euthanized every year simply because they have nowhere to go. I think that trapping and spaying/neutering, and than releasing, would greatly decline the population. See, shooting a stray cat is certainly more...effective...but where one cat comes from, there will be hundreds more.

In the words of the great Bob Barker- "Help control the pet population. Have your pet spayed or neutered."

[AdversePlaceboFX]

If one has an un-neutered/unspayed cat or cats, and one lets the cat/cats roam freely outside, they are going to get pregnant and/or impregnant other cats, thus adding to the growing population. Millions of cats are euthanized every year simply because they have nowhere to go. I think that trapping and spaying/neutering, and than releasing, would greatly decline the population. See, shooting a stray cat is certainly more...effective...but where one cat comes from, there will be hundreds more.

In the words of the great Bob Barker- "Help control the pet population. Have your pet spayed or neutered."

Agreed, unfortunately the "trapping and spaying/neutering, and then releasing" contingent - only managed to bring in about 600 feral cats last year. If the true number of ferals is closer to 2 million as the state argues ... do you really believe that the 600 a year is a winning solution? I'm sure many more than that number were born.

I'm not "for" either solution because I don't believe there is a satisfactory solution to bringing the population under control at this point. It is way too far out of hand. I also don't believe the disease and/or painful starvation awaiting the majority of these cats is much preferable to a gun shot.

SIDE NOTE: I think the animal rights activists (in this instance) would be better served looking at the 15 million real/domesticated pets that need to be euthanized each year from various animal shelters/pounds.

[Pie]

I just think that shooting the cats is way too extreme. Stray dogs can carry rabies, and are a heck of a lot more dangerous than cats. I won't be surprised when someone preposes the "Old Yeller" method.

[Sirene]

Cats' first instinct is to hide from anything/anyone they don't know. Dogs' first instinct is to either attack or "make friends" depending on the personality and the "victim" in question. So not only is a cat less likely to attack something on sight compared to a dog, human or otherwise, the methods of controlling each are entirely different.

[EyesClosed]

I love my guns. I love to shoot things. But I am THOROUGHLY against this law. People should hunt for food. Period. Hunting should not simply be a game of sport. Yes, cats are getting to the point where they could rule the universe, but still. Also, this law is terrifyingly unsafe! Are people just supposed to shoot these cats on site? In towns? On concrete? Around things that cause bullets to ricochete? Hmm, yes, this sounds PERFECTLY sensible. The only way for this law to be executed safely would be for people to catch the cats and take them elsewhere, and then they are just taking the jobs of the pound people :p

This law is silly and unsafe, and I highly doubt that it will ever pass.