Well, it passed the first step.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5344760.html
Justin
>Well, it passed the first step.
>
>http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5344760.html
>
>Justin
Sorry, I tried to use that link, and they want you to register.
Article copied below:
Wisconsin supports making feral cats an unprotected species
Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press
April 13, 2005 CATS0413
MADISON, Wis. -- Despite passionate opposition from cat lovers,
Wisconsin residents supported a plan that would allow hunters to take
out wild felines that kill birds and other small mammals.
Residents who attended Wisconsin Conservation Congress meetings Monday
night voted to allow hunters to kill cats at will, just like skunks or
gophers something the Humane Society of the United States called
cruel and archaic.
The idea still faces several hurdles before it could become law. The
Wisconsin Natural Resources Board at its May meeting will decide
whether to order the Department of Natural Resources to ask the
Legislature to support the change. Lawmakers would have to then pass a
bill and get Gov. Jim Doyle to sign it.
A total of 6,830 people voted yes while 5,201 voted no. Fifty-one
counties approved the plan, 20 rejected it, and one had a tie,
according to results released Tuesday evening by the DNR.
Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, co-chairman of the Legislature's
powerful Joint Finance Committee, said he will "work against any
proposed legislation to legalize the shooting of feral cats.''
The congress, a citizens group that advises the Wisconsin DNR, is
considered a strong lobby on behalf of the state's hunters, but
members were met by a coalition of cat lovers outraged by the plan
proposed by Mark Smith, a La Crosse firefighter. Smith had faced death
threats and the clout of several national animal rights groups
strongly denouncing his idea.
Smith proposed that the state should classify wild cats as an
unprotected species. The proposal defined such cats as those not under
the owner's direct control or wandering by itself without a collar and
noted that "feral domestic cats killed millions of small mammals, song
and game birds'' every year.
Smith and supporters argued that the cats were an invasive species
that hurt Wisconsin's wildlife. Critics said it was an inhumane and
dangerous plan that would do nothing to reduce the population of feral
cats.
Ted O'Donnell, a Madison cat lover who created a Web site against the
hunt and gathered more than 17,000 signatures in an online petition to
oppose the plan, said: "I can assure you that the campaign is
undeterred and we will still be working tirelessly to defeat this in
whatever form it takes next.''
"I don't think it will eventually get passed, but it just means we're
going to have to fight a little harder to make sure of that. We look
forward to the next round.''
Sen. Neal Kedzie, chairman of the Natural Resources and Transportation
committee, said the issue "is a distraction from the main tasks we
have at hand.''
"I don't see a whole lot of momentum for it,'' he said. "It's not the
responsibility of the DNR to regulate cats.''
Two other upper midwestern states, South Dakota and Minnesota, allow
wild cats to be shot. Some estimates indicate 2 million wild cats roam
Wisconsin. The state says studies show feral cats kill 47 million to
139 million songbirds a year.
Animal lovers held pictures of cats, clutched stuffed animals and wore
whiskers as they denounced the plan at the Monday meetings. In the
face of such strong opposition, few hunters publicly spoke in favor of
the question and instead let their votes speak for themselves.
Even Karen Hale, executive director of the Madison Audobon Society,
one of the largest pro-bird groups in the country with 2,500 members,
said she voted no. While the cats have reduced the population of birds
in the state, she said the question was too controversial.
"The whole issue of possibly hunting them is so controversial and
there has been so much misinformation that we really need a lot more
discussion on this issue,'' Hale said. She called for another study
looking at the impact of feral cats.
Kris Aaron, a dressmaker in Jefferson County who has adopted six cats
dumped near her farm, is urging all sides of the debate to reduce the
stray cat population by getting more of them spayed and neutered. She
is starting a countywide program to trap, neuter and release stray
cats.
"If you really care about our songbirds, if you want to see fewer
stray, unloved cats, if you don't want to be overrun with rodents, if
you don't want to be called pet-killers, let's work together to fix
this problem,'' she said.
On the Net:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/
> Well, it passed the first step.
>
> http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5344760.html
Perhaps someone should decide that Wisconsiners are an unprotected
species.
bookbug2005 - 13 Apr 2005 19:17 GMT
Imo, it sucks to hunt anything for mere sport--and this is taking that
proposition over the top.
But even if lawmakers don't share my outrage at the concept, can't they
see, it's just going to cause major conflicts between people. How long
before someone shoots someone pet? And if the petowner has no legal
recourse, how long before he assaults the person who did it? (Probably
fatally.) Or suppose you get some stupid teenager with gun who decides
to go cat hunting in his neighborhood and ends up shooting another kid?
My point is that even if they don't give a damn about the cats, they
can't possibly be so stupid as to be unable to imagine these unintended
consequences.
Michelle
Karen - 13 Apr 2005 19:52 GMT
Oh, and their internal clocks are incredible. My cats sleeping habits change
the minute they sense the change of season. Apparently, your cat was saying
"WHY THE H*LL HAVEN'T YOU SET UP THE SPRING OUTHOUSE YET!!"
> Imo, it sucks to hunt anything for mere sport--and this is taking that
> proposition over the top.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Michelle
kitkat - 14 Apr 2005 03:58 GMT
>>Well, it passed the first step.
>>
>>http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5344760.html
>
> Perhaps someone should decide that Wisconsiners are an unprotected
> species.
I think you mean "cheeseheads" and I'm all for it! ;)
Mary - 14 Apr 2005 04:50 GMT
> >>Well, it passed the first step.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >
> I think you mean "cheeseheads" and I'm all for it! ;)
Right! That's the term I wanted! :)