ASPCA Members! WAKE UP!

April 12, 2005 3:48 PM EDT
MADISON, Wis. - Feline lovers holding pictures of cats, clutching stuffed animals and wearing whiskers faced-off against hundreds of hunters at meetings around Wisconsin to voice their opinion on whether to legalize cat hunting.

Residents in 72 counties were asked whether free-roaming cats - including any domestic cat that isn't under the owner's direct control or any cat without a collar - should be listed as an unprotected species. If listed as so, the cats could be hunted.

The proposal was one of several dozen included in a spring vote on hunting and fishing issues held by the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. The results, only advisory, get forwarded to the state Natural Resources Board.

Statewide results were expected Tuesday.

La Crosse firefighter Mark Smith, 48, helped spearhead the cat-hunting proposal. He wants Wisconsin to declare free-roaming wild cats an unprotected species, just like skunks or gophers. Anyone with a small-game license could shoot the cats at will.

At least two other upper Midwestern states, South Dakota and Minnesota, allow wild cats to be shot - and have for decades. Minnesota defines a wild, or feral, cat as one with no collar that does not show friendly behavior, said Kevin Kyle with that state's Department of Natural Resources.

Every year in Wisconsin alone, an estimated 2 million wild cats kill 47 million to 139 million songbirds, according to state officials. Despite the astounding numbers, Smith's plan has been met with fierce opposition from cat lovers.

Critics of Smith's idea organized Wisconsin Cat-Action Team and developed a Web site - dontshootthecat.com. Some argue it is better to trap wild cats, spay or neuter them, before releasing them.

In Madison, about 1,200 people attended the Monday evening meeting at the Alliant Center - more than the 250 or so in a typical year, but less than the 3,000 or so who took part in a debate in 2000 over whether to allow hunters to shoot mourning doves.

One of the attendees was Katy Francis, who wore cat ears, whiskers, a cat nose and a sign that read, "Too Cute to Kill." For Francis, "The cat hunting thing brought me out because it was very extreme."

 

oh wow...

i'm not going to talk about all the inside-cats who don't wear collars that might one day sneak outside, or collarless farm-cats who roam around, especially when they're in heat.. nevermind the fact that all dead cats look the same, and as such nobody can claim the hunter killed a non-feral stray, or a pet. it is wrong to kill an animal, reguardless of whether or not it is somebody's pet. that is what is most important, and bringing pets into it might muddle it and make the message seem like it's only okay to kill cats that are not pets.

what would listing the feral cats as a protected species entail? would they have to have a certain population, or a population restriction? would anyone have to do anything differently, except not kill them?

whats the point of killing a cat? increased precision, since it's a smaller target? i do not support hunting, but at least when killing a deer a starving family can have a meal... and while cats are edible, that's not very much meat. not enough to satiate starving children, i'd imagine. the thing is, though, i don't know where one would draw the line. why is it okay to kill deer, but not cats (aside from the current legal issue at hand of course)? i don't know how someone can say, "no you can't kill this wild (cat) animal, but this wild (deer) animal over here, with the same population and same environmental impact is just fine to kill."

their argument sounds like it's mostly arbitrary... the cats are killing songbirds (so the solution is for the people to kill the cats who kill the songbirds?). when a cat kills a bird, it eats it, right? pardon my assumptuous vegetarianism here, but i don't think many people in wisconsin eat cat (not the skinny, possibly diseased feral cats, anyway). and if they do, they don't need to (why not sell your rifle and bullets and invest in seeds and a watering can?). i'm against hunting, but i assume part of the logic behind it is for food, and another part is to be in nature. one dead deer can feed a starving family for weeks, but it would cost twenty cats their lives to produce the same amount of food. likewise, feral cats are probably not in nature, in my neighborhood they are in the dumpster and a lightly wooded area behind the dumpster. when hunting feral cats, the hunter doesn't get to hang out in the woods, they hang out in more public places... what about feral cats on the street?

are there restrictions on where one can hunt? if i go to wisconsin and see a feral cat run across the busiest street in downtown madison, can i shoot it? what if it is on the elementary school playground? these are the places feral cats hang out, not the woods!

 

Yeah, I read that. Pretty sad. Whatever happened to the spay/neuter and set free thing? Surely there's at least one vet somewhere in that state who doesn't like the idea of them being shot to death and will do it for free. They could even re-release them someplace away from the cities, so the cats can do the hunting, not the humans.

 

What's NEXT? People? Yeah. I know. I would declare OPEN SEASON on Child Molesters myself! NOBODY is gonna believe this. But, I UNDERSTAND Cat. I can't SPEAK it but I understand them. These critters are no different from Dolphins, or whales. They like humans.

 

yeah, but the "problem" is that the cats are hunting, and they're killing songbirds.
it seems like the state gov't is saying that cats can and should hunt, but only mice and 'vermin' and when they go near a bird people get cranky. how else are cats supposed to eat, being that they're pure carnivores? cats are not the only things that eat songbirds, birds of prey and snakes do the same... but we can't hunt owls (right? and if we can, it's probably not because they eat baby birds). also, you made me wonder whether they would still have this situation if the cats weren't going after the birds, or if the state of wisconsin would just come up with some other excuse to kill them?

 

Lawngirl makes some great points. So any cat that is roaming around without a collar is fair game? Well my cat roams around without a collar, primarily because collars can be hazardous. Cats climb trees and run around and their collar could easily get caught on something and choke them to death or even keep them stuck to something if their collar should get snagged and they aren't able to get themselves free. And people don't eat cats (atleast here in America) so don't you think these "cat shooters" will be doing this for the "sport" or it....or basically just plain enjoyment of killing something? What if a cat with a collar is roaming in some hunters backyard and he just so happens to feel like being an asshole and killing it....then after he kills it he takes the collar off and disposes of it. I wonder how the owner could prove that their cat was indeed collared. This is just plain CRAZY. I don't agree with hunting anything (unless you need to for survival) but this definatley crosses the line. We were the species that made cats domestic, we as a society (in general I dont mean the responsible people) don't take the proper measures to make sure these cats are all properly cared for, fed, and spayed/neutered....hence the reason there are so many feral cats. So now we take to shooting them? It's not the cats' fault it's ours and the solution needs to start with us......hunting cats is not the long term solution. *sigh* I hope this law doesn't get passed.

 

You make really good points Elle. There are a lot of people who just don't like cats, or hate cat lovers even worse and would just do something like that. The whole thing is stupid, but if they are going to do it anyway, they should make it so that the criteria for the cat to be shot is more than just "collarless and not friendly".

Anyway, as far as the collar goes, you can buy break away collars for cats. They hold their tags on, but if they get caught on something, it breaks right off of them.

 

I volunteer and I'm a member of the ASPCA...

Aw...

Fer

 

Sick, sick, sick, sick SICK!


I hate ALL forms of hunting, it's a digusting and has no real purpose. Okay, cats kill alot of songbirds, but so do other animals. Yes, cats are a problem, they do hunt alot, but this is a natural instinct. Any time they hunt to 'contol numbers of damaging species' (foxes, for example, is a British toss-head-hunters favorite) it doesn't work. Cutting down any species numbers cause the species to go into overdrive, producing more young to continue genetic lines and the like, so it does nothing to control the population.
As for the collar thing, yes cat collars ARE dangerous, and there are ones that snap free. BUt what about cats with microchips? Mine has both a microchip and a collar, he lives inside, but I am safe in the knowledge that if he does escape, I always have the microchip to prove he's my cat, and for finding him. I doubt a 'hunter' is going to mircochip a cat before he/she shoots it.
And it's obvious this hunters don't like cats, so I doubt they would be all that bothered if they shot a collared cat, and simply removed the collar afterwards, there can be no proof that they removed the collar themselves, and not much can be done once the cat is dead.

Sick, it's too sick for words.

 

They decided against the proposal.

 

Whew... thank goodness

 

awesome

 

Breakaway collars aren't always safe; a friend's cat got injured getting stuck on one, and my cat used to lose his occasionally. Also, my older cat is pretty sensitive and even the softest collar used to give him bald spots in his neck.

Since all vets and shelters here in the Netherlands have chip-reading equipment nowadays, I don't have a collar on either of my two cats anymore, but both of them are chipped. It's much safer, can't get them hung up, can't chafe, can't slip off -but it's not visible unless you got the equipment. I'm glad cat hunting isn't allowed here!

 

Your not the only one that can understand cat. I think it's from living big part of my life with cats.

 

another poster was talking about microchips, too. it's funny, i was at the pet store the other day and they had puppies with chips in them. to me, chips are disgustingly unnatural, kind of in line with the whole orwellian idea of 'big brother.' installing computer chips in sensate creatures always sounded like something conspiracy theorists warned us about, but never a 'real' concern. i didn't realize these things were legal until recently, and now it sounds like they're also socially acceptable, too? i understand the concept behind it, and the intentions sound good... it helps you locate your lost pet. and i understand that collars are not safe, for many reasons, so i'm not advocating those here. installing a computer chip in a sensate creature just sounds horrible to me. this isn't aimed at you, and i really hope this doesn't sound rude as it isn't meant to sound accusing, i'm just really curious about the whole thing (maybe i should start a different thread?). do you feel it is morally right to install chips in sensate creatures? and why is it not only acceptable, but seemingly encouraged, to do this to animals, but not people so much? or do you think it will eventually be acceptable in humans, too? there was a case recently where a guy sued his parents for installing a chip in him without his knowledge or concent, so thats why i ask about humans. i'm shocked that people are okay with this.

 

*yay* I'm so glad the law didn't pass!!!

About the chips.....I'm kind of indifferent about the situation. It doesn't sound nice....it's definatley unnatural, but of course if it wasn't safe vets wouldn't be advocating it and it has brought home lots of lost pets......if a microchipped pet ends up at the pound instead of being put to sleep (if no one claims him) his owners can be located.....some pets have ended up in other states and their owners certainly wouldn't be looking for them there I'm sure. I feel like it's a voice for lost pets to say -hey this is where I'm from please get me back home! - I personally think the good out weighs the bad from what I know of it....however I wouldn't do it my own animals....I just don't feel the need. If my dog goes outside I put her collar on her and my cat never goes to far from the house...although I'm probably taking that for granted.

 

Awww that is so sad, I love cats





They taste great!!!!!

 

Asshat.

 

heh dude it doesn't hurt the animal one bit, they don't know its there, all it means is if yor cat/dog/whatever gets lost they can easily be traced back. We've been doing it to our cats and dogs for eaons with absolutely NO side effects....lets face it if a human gets lost he can give an adress or a number or something if i cat gets lost they can't....

 

no, i'm not questioning this for the pain aspect so much as the moral aspect. it might not hurt a human when installing a microchip, but does that make it morally correct? it does not matter whether or not the animal knows its there. in a recent case, a guy found out his parents put a chip in him without telling him, and the fact that he wasn't aware of the chip actually made it worse. i ask because where do we draw the line? would you implant a chip in a human baby in case it were to crawl off somewhere?