Friday, November 16, 2007

Man shooting cat

This is the case that has been getting a lot of attention in the American media. Serina just sent me this latest article and here's another.

I am not familiar with the cruelty laws in Texas (and obviously they are different in every state) but I don't think the issue here is about ownership or lack of ownership. Someone shot a cat and left it to suffer for 40 minutes before it died. If that isn't cruel, then what is? It's a good thing the laws were changed as a result of this if nothing else.

Even if the cat was shot quickly, what gives someone the right to go out and shoot a cat? It always surprises me that someone who says that they love birds would go out and shoot a cat. In that case, what if people decided to go out and shoot some birds then? Some caregivers have had cats killed by dogs that roam and as painful and as horrible as that was for them, I can't think of one who called the AVA because to them, dogs and animals too and someone who cares for animals would not knowingly harm another animal.

Unfortunately another case of abuse in Singapore. Thanks Vegancat for sharing.

Labels: ,

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

selfish inhuman humans

16/11/07 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dakota crescent? isn't this the old airport estate where there was a series of cat abuse. damn!

16/11/07 4:40 PM  
Blogger EJ. said...

Rest in peace, dearest cat.

Sadness and frustration!
killer/killers of previous cases was never caught.Now it starts again.

16/11/07 4:46 PM  
Anonymous E_Cat said...

yes. dakota is just across the road from the old airport foodcenter. i thought david hooi was already arrested?! hope it is not a copy cat crime

16/11/07 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The prosecution and defense wrangled repeatedly about whether witnesses could accurately assess the cat’s state of mind.

“He’s not qualified to know what the cat was feeling,” said Mr. Nelson, when a police officer, John P. Bertolino Sr., testified that the cat was in terrible pain when he arrived at the crime scene. The cat died en route to a Humane Society facility.


Most retarded defense ever.

16/11/07 10:06 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16/11/07 10:19 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

:)

16/11/07 10:22 PM  
Anonymous E_Cat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

16/11/07 11:08 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

I'm removing that last comment as it is potentially defamatory.

16/11/07 11:17 PM  
Blogger Hai~Ren said...

With regards to the case in the USA about the birder who shot the cat, I really feel that both sides have very valid arguments. The fact of the matter is that cats can and do take a very heavy toll on wildlife, and that in many situations, especially where species are seriously threatened by the introduction of such a predator, removal of individuals, and even complete eradication of the local feral cat population might be the only feasible solution. Yet at the same time, in this case, it cannot be denied that this was not a feral cat per se, but a cat that had been cared for by somebody, and while I understand the rationale behind removing a non-native predator, I only wish that there was some other way to resolve such a conundrum.

The truth of the matter is that where it comes to saving an entire species from complete annihilation, there will be times when one species will be more valuable than another. Hence many of those fighting to save critically endangered species will not hesitate to get rid of non-native species in order to boost the survival of the endangered ones. The depressing extinction crisis the world is facing now would be even worse if not for those people at the frontlines, who have given their all to create refuges completely free of rats and rabbits and yes, cats.

Still, considering the welfare issues involved, I would certainly never condone shooting a cat and making it suffer like that. If I really did feel very strongly that eradicating cats to protect a threatened bird colony was necessary, I'd make sure that my shooting skills were up to par first and ensure a clean, instant kill. =/

I foresee flames coming in...

17/11/07 12:20 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Hai Ren here's the thing - first of all, I have to disagree with you on the fact that cats cause a heavy toll on wild life. Do cats hunt? Yes. Do they hunt successfully? Often not.

Cats have been out in the wild for thousands of years. So have birds and other wildlife. So why is it that cats are now being blamed for decimating wildlife when they have always been in the wild with the very animals that they have been accused of decimating?

Let's look at the piping plover, the bird involved in this case - here's a link about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piping_Plover and the reasons why they are getting endangered. I find it interested that Off Road Vehicles are now prohibited from some areas that the birds are in - the cats have always been around, but ORVs certainly haven't.

The fact of the matter is that WE, not cats, are the main reason why birds and other wildlife are going extinct.

Here's an interesting link :- http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/25256/Birds_going_extinct_faster_due_to_human_activities.html

Interestingly birds are going extinct far more quickly because of people - at the same time, more birds are known to be going 'extinct' just because we know of the existence of these birds, which wasn't the case before.

Let's also consider that when you DO decide to eradiate one population that you cause other problems - http://www.alleycat.org/pdf/cull.pdf.

I also think not enough was done to consider other solutions. For example, the man saw the cats on the beach and then decided to shoot them. Did he consider other options? For example, if the cats were sterilised and managed there would certainly be less cats in the area. Killing or shooting them wouldn't be a way to solve the issue of the cats being there, and new ones would almost certainly move in, especially as people were dumping in the area apparently - I wonder if it just gives vent to feelings of anger this man felt at the cats.

Instead of blaming the cats, something constructive to do would be to have worked with the caregiver and the officials. This was apparently a well known dumping ground for cats. If something had been done to stop the dumping, and the cats managed that certainly would have helped.

At the end of the day, consider this - cats are usually pretty terrible at hunting birds. How often have you seen a cat successfully hunt and kill a bird? Of all the cats I have had, I only had one who was an efficient birder (and when I say efficient he perhaps killed less than 5 birds his whole life) - he's now indoors partly because of this - but the rest have never so much as caught a single bird.

17/11/07 3:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feasible is not a word to describe the removal of an entire species from an ecosystem. The reason why we promote TNRM is because of the well known vacuum effect and the futility of eradicating populations of fast breeding animals. (The exception would be on small isolated islands where the vacuum effect would not take place. Nontheless, you would have to remove almost every single animal in order to prevent the population bouncing back to pre-cull levels or higher.)

18/11/07 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, by the way it doesn't always have to be an EITHER/OR situation. For example:

http://ga0.org/indefenseofanimals/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=12098728

Victory: Cape May Adopts Plan to Protect Both Feral Cats and Endangered Birds

IDA joins coalition that helped convince New Jersey town to preserve TNR program


Every year, the New Jersey beach town of Cape May hosts the Audubon Society's World Series of Birding, when bird watchers from around the world compete for various awards. Home to some of the rarest birds in North America, Cape May is also a committed cat community with a model Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) program that has successfully reduced the feral cat population by 75% since 1995. However, the TNR program was recently threatened when the town council wanted to trap and euthanize feral cats to protect endangered Piping Plovers, Least Terns, and Black Skimmers from predation.

When the Cape May City Council first announced a plan to outlaw TNR in the town, IDA's East Coast Director Valerie Sicignano immediately banded together with several organizations to form a coalition that would protect both feral cat and bird populations. The coalition opposed the plan on the grounds that it would unnecessarily condemn Cape May's feral cats to death, as they would all be taken to shelters and killed. At a meeting attended by several dozen animal advocates representing different organizations in the coalition, the council members voted unanimously to adopt a new plan that includes:

- Creating a 1,000-foot buffer zone between cat colonies and the beaches where birds nest on the ground;

- Making microchips mandatory for cats; and

- Enforcing hefty fines for abandonment of cats in the town.

IDA commends Cape May for choosing a humane solution that will serve as an example for others to follow.

18/11/07 4:10 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

I agree that there can be a compromise worked out - am not sure how the microchipping will help specifically, and I am sure each situation is different but I DO think that something can be worked out as long as both sides are willing to try.

18/11/07 8:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

piping plover = endangered
feral cats = everywhere

there was no law in texas preventing someone from shooting feral cats at the time this cat was shot.

if the cat "belonged" to the toll booth operator, he should be responsible for it. owners who let their dogs get loose and run around get ticketed.

if birdman gets convicted for killing a cat "belonging" to the catman, the catman should be prepared to accept responsibility when one of the other cats he "owns" kills an endangered species.

11/12/07 5:59 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Anonymous - first of all, the plover is NOT endangered in Texas. It is only listed as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed.

Secondly, it may not have been 'illegal' to shoot a cat in Texas, but say I take your analogy. As you said, if someone's dog runs off, you can get ticketed because you OWN the dog. You're saying that the toll booth operator should have been fined. Which means you accept that he is the owner of the cat.

If that's the case, using your analogy, it is no longer about shooting a feral cat. It is akin to taking a gun and shooting my neighbour's dog if the dog ran off my neighbour's property.

11/12/07 9:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home