81-Year-Old Squirrel Killer Sentenced To 30 Days

gothamist.com ^ | May 21, 2010 | Jen Carlson

[poobear]

Habitraps. $45 at Lowe's. Bait them with peanuts. The little rats can't resist. The raccoons and opossum can't either.

[Dr. Sivana]

Either it is okay to kill an animal or it is not.

I didn't say anything about killing animals and you know it. It is okay to kill a chicken and make a meal. Cock fighting is depraved. If you are starving on a boat and there is nothing to eat put Fido, it is okay to kill him. If you get kicks half-hanging him and kicking him, you are depraved. The old guy in question was not just shooting animals. In some cases he was torturing them. In general, he was drawing the animals to his yard to shoot them, not merely getting rid of present vermin. You don't know the meaning of humane? Do you think it is okay to get a dog from a shelter and shoot it with a pellet gun? By what basis are you discriminating?

[rlmorel]

LOL...I would be Yorkies would keep the squirrels off the ground...:)

[winodog]

I recall my grandpa shooting squirrels sitting on the back porch in Ohio and letting me try.

That has stayed with me all my life and I always wanted a place where I could do that.
I have the property now and the critters but I have no desire to shoot em.

[skinkinthegrass]

LOL!!!...about six years ago...
there was another one, called "PULL"...very funny.

[savedbygrace]

Thank you. I’m going to assume this is the work of a raccoon for now.

A few years ago, we did have a raccoon in our yard in broad daylight. The dog was barking at it, and it was sitting on the top crossbeam of the wooden fence, right next to the gate.

We called Animal Control and when the guy came out, he looked at the raccoon for a few seconds, then reached over and picked the guy up. He said it was a baby, but it was pretty big, I thought.

[bert]

For the record, chasing away the neighbor’s stray cats is the first order of business and perhaps the original reason for the pellet gun.

By the way, my problem is skunks. They root up the yard as bad as wild hogs

[FredZarguna]

Our cat will kill anything roughly three times his size or less. We had huge problems with field mice before we rescued him as a kitten (abandoned in our neighbors' garage.). One night two summers ago I saw him tree a raccoon. Several nights later the kids left the back door open and I found him, the raccoon, and another cat I'd never seen before swirling around in a screaming furball in the kitchen. The raccoon was hell to chase out of the house, but I'm glad it wasn't a skunk: just as bad as coons for rabies and of course the smell.

Needless to say, all the strays and outdoor cats in the neighborhood come over here looking for fights. I keep enemy cats away with a paintball gun; they learn pretty quickly.

He's in his glory now, in the first month of spring. Moles, voles, shrews, mice, grey squirrels, red squirrels, birds, and his favorite: rabbits. Squirrels are rats with bushy tails. Why they're protected I don't understand. Compared to how our cat deals with 'em, this old guy is doing them a favor.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Including those campaigning for office ? ;-D

[ConservativeMind]

“Humane?” Oh, you mean that liberal-loved, relative term?

The one that apparently is simply defined by a majority of people at any given moment. For instance, it is “humane” to kill human fetuses as late as is needed. It is “humane” to let terminally-ill people die at the hands of a doctor. It is “humane” to kill people on death row via electrocution. It is “humane” to slaughter animals if they’ve been killed with an air hammer. It is “humane” to let your animals roam free, rather than keep them confined as house pets.

I could go on.

As you will note, each of the above use your relative term of choice, “humane,” to justify some way of handling a living being.

As it is relative, you have no merit on your own definition of what “humane” is, as everyone else is using the benefit of its relativeness to their own advantage.

Only absolutes should matter, and then within those absolutes, peer pressure, rather than laws, should help influence behaviors toward ones own animals.

If you own the animals, you should be able to eat it or kill it. Killing shouldn’t be left only to the liberals at your local PETA or ASPCA group to perform, but, in fact, to all animal owners, to do it in whatever fashion they so desire.

Within that, social pressure should be allowed to be administered to promote certain behaviors, perhaps like Kosher killing, that seek some semblance of kindness toward an animal. That said, killing an animal, as with a fetus, is killing another life. At least with humans, we have a Constitution to help protect us. Animals don’t.

I don’t discriminate.

[csmusaret]

Get a Gamo. I bought one at Bass Pro Shop for $129. Comes with an adequate scope. Has a rifled barrel, and it’s VERY accurate. .177 caliber pellets.

[Dr. Sivana]

“Humane?” Oh, you mean that liberal-loved, relative term?

"Humane" is not a liberal buzz-word. It is a very old word. Nor is it a relative word. Different people have different perceptions of what it means (just as with the words liberal and conservative). It is a good and necessary word. In 1635, Ireland passed a law against attaching a plough to a horse's tail. Seventeeth century Ireland was neither a liberal nor relativistic society.

Just because some people misuse words, doesn't mean the words are bad.

Within that, social pressure should be allowed to be administered to promote certain behaviors,

Why? I thought you didn't discriminate? If it is okay to torture animals for fun, why should there be any social pressure against it?

Human civilization passes laws that restrict savage behaviour. Torturing animals for fun is one of those behaviours that can be legally restricted. Because different animals serve different roles and have different levels of dignity (a dog vs. a bug, for instance) these restrictions can vary based on a number of factors.

Going into detail as to what and why is beyond the scope of a short post.

Based on what you have written, Michael Vick should have only been charged with illegal gambling and maybe subject to some negative peer pressure.

[ConservativeMind]

I believe people should have the right to cock fight and eat their own cats, if they want.

Based on your responses, you believe animals have rights.

[Dr. Sivana]

I believe people should have the right to cock fight and eat their own cats, if they want.

Based on your responses, you believe animals have rights.

You are LibertarianMind," not "ConservativeMind." You also have not understood my responses. Animals should not be tortured because of what it does to the man, not because of what it does to the animal. Man is a responsible animal, hence he has rights and duties. Animals are not responsible, hence they can have neither. This is an important distinction, and one which you apparently cannot see.

[ConservativeMind]

I love how seemingly “educated” people think Libertarians want bad things for everyone.

I’ll put it to you this way: God wants everyone to follow Him. He has the ability to make everyone do everything He wants, but He chooses not to. Frankly, every sin that has ever happened on Earth is only because He allowed it. Does this mean God WANTS the sin to happen if He allows it?

In your mind, with the reasoning you put forth, you believe God wants people to sin because He allows it to occur, even though He can abolish sin and also make people do what He wants.

In my mind, God wants us to follow Him but allows us to choose.