Cat Forum / General Topics / December 2006
Seen this Web Site?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
SavedByZero - 13 Dec 2006 21:41 GMT X-No-Archive:
A friend sent me an Email referencing this Web Site:
http://chaiokitty.com/index.html
It appears to be legitimate. I understand that feral cats can be a problem that sometimes has to be dealt with somehow. I don't fault these guys for trying to do something about the problem. But I'm not sure the cats are _the_ problem and these guys don't really know what they are shooting...could be someones' pets.
In short, I object to the methods and obvious joy with which these trigger-happy bozos go about their "hobby". And what they are doing _may_ be illegal in IA.
I'm wondering if someone from IA would be willing to locate the controlling state agency ( Humane Society may be willing and able to help ) and have these guys put out of business if possible.
Otherwise, I could just drive out and shoot their dogs--they are pests as well. Of course, I would not do that, but it would drive home the message.
Thanks, SBZ
William Graham - 13 Dec 2006 22:00 GMT > X-No-Archive: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Thanks, > SBZ Shooting domestic animals is illegal in most all states....In some, it is a felony. You should contact your local police department........
TaliesinSoft - 13 Dec 2006 23:49 GMT > Shooting domestic animals is illegal in most all states....In some, it is > a felony. You should contact your local police department........ Is a feral cat a "domestic animal?"
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com
William Graham - 14 Dec 2006 22:10 GMT >> Shooting domestic animals is illegal in most all states....In some, it is >> a felony. You should contact your local police department........ > > Is a feral cat a "domestic animal?" Sure.....How do you know whether anyone is feeding it, or caring for it? - It could be someone's pet. To me, shooting any animal just for sport should be illegal. If you are hunting for food, well, that's different. But I don't know anyone who eats stray cats. People who do this are sick. They have a mental defect, like being unable to place yourself above the earth, with your head pointing North and read maps. These people are unable to mentally place themselves in another animals position, and feel the cold and hunger and danger and suffering they feel trying to survive in a hostile world. They are probably religious, and think that animals don't have souls, and therefore God doesn't care about them. But I know that they feel pain just like anyone else, whether they have "souls" or not. To have compassion for another creature is a sign of intelligence. If you have it, you should be using it.
purrr - 14 Dec 2006 23:51 GMT What you are saying, up to the religious part, is logical and makes good sense. However, after that, your thinking gets convoluted. Religious & think animals don't have souls? I think most rational people would agree animals, in general, do feel pain. What's that got to do with religion? Yes, an intelligent and rational person should have compassion for other creatures. Actually, hunting is a sport and is a *good* thing, when regulated. Hunters perform a valuable service by thinning out certain overpopulated animals. BTW, since you introduced "religion," I'll assume you are talking about God? God gave man dominion over all the animals, at least that is what I found in the Bible. With that dominion, of course, comes a great responsibility. You may have religion and God confused. In my case, I avoid All religions.
purrr
> Sure.....How do you know whether anyone is feeding it, or caring for it? - > It could be someone's pet. To me, shooting any animal just for sport [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > not. To have compassion for another creature is a sign of intelligence. If > you have it, you should be using it. William Graham - 15 Dec 2006 00:51 GMT > What you are saying, up to the religious part, is logical and > makes good sense. However, after that, your thinking gets [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > purrr Well, in the development of a logical argument for not mistreating animals, I not only have to show that they do feel pain, but I have to answer the question, "So what?" In my crude attempt to answer this latter question, I guess I have to bring religion into it. After all, literaly millions of animals die hideous deaths every year as a direct result of being born on this earth. So the question arises, "What difference does a few more make?" As a matter of fact, one might say, "Since God puts millions of animals through the pain and suffering of starving and freezing to death every Winter, perhaps He would be happy to have us help him out, instead of trying to undo His efforts." In my perusal of the Bible (as well as other religious writings) I have found a great dearth of recommendations for alleviating the pain and suffering of our fellow creatures on the lower order of life. There is a great deal of advice about helping one's fellow man, but it would seem that most Gods don't give a hoot for the animals.
wester@laway.net - 15 Dec 2006 11:57 GMT > > What you are saying, up to the religious part, is logical and > > makes good sense. However, after that, your thinking gets [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > great deal of advice about helping one's fellow man, but it would seem that > most Gods don't give a hoot for the animals. Yeah. Typical xtian. gawd loves us all, except the furs. I can't accept this foolish concept. Yet another reason I can't accept the idea of gawd.
purrr - 16 Dec 2006 02:26 GMT >> > What you are saying, up to the religious part, is logical and >> > makes good sense. However, after that, your thinking gets [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > this foolish concept. Yet another reason I can't accept the idea of > gawd. So says the dipwad on a dial-up account from Orlando. ROTFLMAO! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz
TaliesinSoft - 16 Dec 2006 03:40 GMT [commenting on whether a feral cat is considered to be a domestic animal]
> How do you know whether anyone is feeding it, or caring for it? - It could be
> someone's pet. If my dog wanders off my property and onto that of a farmer who raises sheep and my dog is considered by that farmer to be a threat to those sheep he has every right to kill it even though it is a pet and not a feral animal. I'll assume that the same logic would hold if my cat was perceived as a threat to my neighbors baby chicks.
 Signature James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com
William Graham - 16 Dec 2006 06:46 GMT > [commenting on whether a feral cat is considered to be a domestic animal] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to > my neighbors baby chicks. That's true, but I would suggest that the farmer wait until at least one of his sheep was harmed by the dog, and your neighbor should wait until at least one of the chicks is harmed by the cat, too. Around here, all dogs are supposed to be leashed by law, but the same does not apply to cats. Cats are considered a natural outside, wandering species, even if they are pets....We have all of ours collared and tagged, but the feral cat has some kind of skin condition, and he tore his collar off scratching, so he went untagged for several years. Today, he no longer wanders (he is about 10 years old) and just sleeps by the fire.....He still scratches a lot, but my wife brushes him and puts an anti-itch medication on him which seems to work....There is no sense in collaring him, because he never leaves the property, and he would never allow himself to get close enough to anyone else for them to read the tag anyway.
|
|
|