http://www.poconorecord.com/local/tjd67774.htm

That link was furnished earlier by the "J Marz" person who frankly seems to
be a troll, and I surely don't want to feed him. I can promise you I'm not a
"troll" either, just covering this issue as I'm moved to.

The simple point I want to make is this: if poisonings like this happen
because someone's pets are being a nuisance to someone else and that someone
else was taking action to eliminate the nuisance, frankly the "someone else"
should not be punished in anyway.

Is it a cruel way to solve the problem? Yes. To be sure the animal suffers
and the animal did no wrong. That is not lost on me. But what is MORE
relevant than the animal's suffering is the "someone else's" suffering at
the hands of neighbors/animal owners who for some weird reason just can't
understand that others don't see their furball or mutt as being the 2nd
coming of Jesus Christ--and would like to be left alone. Actually, it's more
than they'd LIKE to be left alone--they have the RIGHT to be left alone.
Even if you move in a neighborhood full of animals fully aware of that and
you alone don't want them in your yard--it should be do-able. And it
shouldn't be the "someone else's" responsibility to spend thousands of
dollars on fences etc to screen their yard out (although if they can afford
it it wouldn't hurt I guess). Rather it is the animals owner's
responsibility to keep their animals IN.

That's the thing--the animal lovers just can't seem to accept that others
around them don't consider foo-foo or Fido to be the 2nd coming of the
Almighty and don't want any hassles. They don't want constant barking in
their ears. They don't want paw-prints on their $50,000 BMW--and they don't
want to be told that maybe they ought to spend $10,000 on a garage as if
it's THEIR responsibility to control someone ELSE'S furballs. Or that they
ought to not wander around on their own property at certain times because
it's bound to upset the neighbor's dogs--a person ought to be able to wander
on their own property right up to the edge if they please AND not be
harassed with yelps and barks everytime they dare to.

I have a cat--my wife and I do--and other than a few times here & there
where she irritates us by getting too wild (she is a kitten after all) we
love her to death and treat her as such. But she doesn't bother anyone else
in our apartment complex. We don't force her on persons who visit us; in
fact, if any are cat-alergic, we try and accomodate them by cleaning more
and keeping the cat confined to one side of the place during that period
(not often). We don't expect them to adapt to our environment--even though
it is our home--because after all our human friends are far more valuable
than any cat's EVER going to be. That's called balance--and common sense,
frankly. Those who love their animals to the point they're as important as
even their closest human friends--frankly, they need mental help.

With the poisonings--if it's arbitrary and capricious (sp?) or just plain
being mean and a case of being a vandal, that's one thing. But if the
"someone else" is keeping a nuisance out of their yard--especially if it's a
case where the owners have been asked repeatedly to PLEASE do something and
they don't--then the "someone else" I feel is right to do this and the owner
is the one at fault, 100%.

As for lodging complaints to Animal Control etc--problem is, it can take
weeks or even months for anything to get done. Why should the "someone else"
have to take that long if they can solve the problem a lot quicker
themselves? Why should the police get involved in every such thing? Thing
is, if you're this "someone else" dealing with such a situation, all that's
important at such a time is "how do I solve this problem?"  You're not
interested in whose feelings are going to be hurt, or what the law is, or if
your neighbors will hate you afterwards. You don't care. You just want some
peace & quiet and you'd like your $50,000 BMW to not have paw-prints all
over it everytime you just spent $30 at the auto store having it detailed.
And that's completely within such a person's rights within their private
property--NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE, period.

So to this Oliver guy who poisoned the cats--frankly, I applaud him. I do
this assuming he did try & reason with the neighbors first only to be
rebuffed. (The article describing how the animals ran free makes me think
that.) If that isn't how it happened--if he went off half-cocked without
first trying to reason with his neighbors--then shame on him. I'd assume him
to be acting maliciously and frankly I couldn't think of him any differently
than the animal-lowers crowd would.

But if the scenario went as I tend to think it did--that is, he told each
neighbor "can you please control your animals" only to be told "get over it"
or "lighten up" or "what do you expect us to do" or "why don't you garage
your car if you're going to be THAT touchy"---yada yada yada, then frankly
Oliver did as any person ought to. He fought back. And if the owners want to
blame anyone, they ought to blame themselves. And if they're so torn up with
pain over how their animal suffered--yes, they should be. But they shouldn't
be mad at Oliver--because Oliver isn't really to blame for the fact that
their animals paid the ultimate price. Ultimately, by not being good
neighbors and refusing to control their animals' behavior--THEY KILLED their
pets, NOT Oliver.

LRH