Posted on 01/31/2014 2:44:12 PM PST by don-o
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. -
A Rutherford County elementary school teacher faces animal cruelty charges for shooting her neighbor's cat.
Katherine Duke, a fourth grade teacher at Wilson Elementary School in Murfreesboro, admitted to police she shot the cat Thursday afternoon because she was tired of it using her children's sandbox as a litter box.
The cat's owner rushed it to a veterinarian where the animal had to be euthanized.
Duke, 41, was charged with animal cruelty and booked into the Rutherford County.
She has since been released on a $2,250 bond and is scheduled to appear in court March 4.
(Excerpt) Read more at wjhl.com ...
> Cats that live in the wild or indoor pets allowed to roam outdoors kill from 1.4 billion to as many as 3.7 billion birds in the continental U.S. each year, says a new study that escalates a decades-old debate over the feline threat to native animals.
The woman in the story killed the cat because it messed in her sandbox. Imagine 3.7 billion more birds flying overhead and defecating on sandboxes, car tops, and people’s heads. :-)
You seem to have taken the trouble to research this matter, though, so I’ll try to respond seriously. Nature is cruel. We can’t get away from it. I don’t like seeing the remains of a dead bird either, and the idea that billions of them are dying painful deaths would make me sad if I thought about it very much (I try not to do that, just as I try not to think of the millions of human beings who are suffering at this very moment. If we spend a lot of time thinking about things like that, then not only will they be unhappy, but we will be to.) The sad truth is that birds will increase in population until they reach a number that the environment can’t support. If they aren’t limited by predation, they’ll be limited by starvation or something else. As I understand it — and despite cats — suburban areas are favorable habitats for many species of birds (the combination of shrubbery and open spaces).
Despite the cats that often come through my yard, I see mockingbirds, Carolina wrens, cardinals, and brown thrashers nearly every day, along with many other species. Some of them nest in my yard. Occasionally I see the remains of a bird that I assume a cat killed, but on the whole they seem to be reproducing well. Predation itself is cruel (and practiced by many species of birds too, of course), but that’s a characterisic of nature itself, not something peculiar to cats. In ordinary suburban areas those large numbers of killed birds are misleading. Imagine what a large number of birds those areas must be supporting in order for 3.7 billion of them to be killed by cats.
It’s true that in more wild areas there may be a few endangered species that cats do pose a serious threat to, and I agree that special care should be taken there. In most residential areas, though, the battle for survival among the various species — cats, dogs, birds, mice, squirrels — probably reached a state of relative stability long ago. Cats and dogs have been in this country for hundreds of years. I’m living in the same neighborhood where I spent my childhood over half a century ago, and I think we have as many birds as we had in the past. Probably more.
People have a right to protect their property. Disposing of vermin is natural and time honored.
The ROOT CAUSE is irresponsible pet owners. The fault lies totally on them. Without A there is no B.
Liberals whine when their irresponsibility bites them in the ass, and try to blame others.
Quit whining, and keep your pets on your property.
/johnny
> The ROOT CAUSE is irresponsible pet owners. The fault lies totally on them. Without A there is no B.
This is A-B-C. Without A or B, there’s no C. Also not every cause merits every possible response. I was annoyed for a while because a child who lives behind me was cutting through my yard to visit a friend who lives across the street (thereby avoiding having to walk around the block). That “cause” could have resulted in my shooting him. I chose milder remedies, though, and eventually he stopped.
An animal that is where it isn't supposed to be, causing damage, is vermin. Historically, those are killed.
You seem to be doing the liberal thing of equating animals with children.
I'm not going to waste my time with a liberal any more.
Pound sand.
/johnny
No the question is if I should let an irresponsible pet owner dictate to me that I must act to overcome their negligent and irresponsible acts and attitude by having to put a cover on my kids sandbox. My answer is simply, NO WAY IN HE11. Your cat, your responsibility. Period. On my property your cat needs to be someplace else. I do not like cats and do not own any because of it. Why do you think that any other person has some right to impose their cat on me or that it should be allowed to roam freely on my property? You can not get past these questions because there is no justification or legal argument that can make these things right. If my dogs were out chasing deer I would shoot them myself. The deer as well as the birds are protected by state laws. Why do cat owners think that their kitty can go out and kill protected birds? They let them outside or keep them outside and enable them kill protected birds. That is an admitted fact well established by comments in this thread of posts. If my dogs got out and killed a deer the state fish and game would have me in court paying a big fine. Cat owners who's cats hunt and kill birds should be treated in the same exact manner. At the bottom of this is the belief by many that cats should be treated differently than dogs and other pets. BS. If I'm held responsible to keep my dogs at home then exactly the same should be required of cat owners. No excuses or BS rationalizations are accepted. What is good for one must be good for the other.
> No the question is if I should let an irresponsible pet owner dictate to me that...
The pet owner doesn’t “dictate” to you. I agree that the owner has been irresponsible, but the choice of what to do when the cat is in the sandbox is yours. I’d prefer to put a cover on it myself. If your conscience is ok with killing people’s pets, though — and society allows it (apparently not, in this case) — then fine.
I made no analogy that equates human beings with animals (I just finished saying in a previous post that I expected more of human beings). What I was doing was exemplifying my claim — so obvious it shouldn’t need exemplification — that “not every cause merits every possible response.” That’s the weakness in your argument that the root cause alone establishes the blame. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t. It depends on the alternatives.
> A child is a human, and can’t be shot for trespass.
Apparently cats can’t be shot for trespass either, not in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. :-)
> Pound sand.
Don’t want to. Might be unsanitary (might be cats around).
go pss up a stump
“but the person who chose to kill the neighbor’s pet (rather than adopt simple remedies like covering the sandbox)”
I don’t remember whether the article stated whether the vigilant mother had tried anything else first...
“People have a responsibility to respond to offenses in measured ways, appropriate under the circumstances. The killer of the neighbor’s pet didn’t do that. “
Your opinion is great and you are entitled to hold it, but whether the response is “appropriate” depends on many things.
I once had a cat get into my car in TX. Windows were open because I didn’t have a garage and didn’t want the dashboard to overheat and crack. The male cat sprayed inside my car. It was horrendous. If I ever saw that cat again, he was a dead cat. It was entirely appropriate to eliminate the animal that cost me time and serious money to try to get the smell out of my carpet and seats - due to the idiot owner letting him run wild on the property of others. Unfortunately, the offending cat never returned to the scene of his vandalism. Thankfully, he has died of old age by now.
He’s a cutie!
/johnny
> I don’t remember whether the article stated whether the vigilant mother had tried anything else first...
The article did say that she shot the cat “...because she was tired of it using her children’s sandbox as a litter box” — “sandbox” not sandbox cover. I don’t believe a cover would attract a cat.
> The male cat sprayed inside my car. It was horrendous.... that cost me time and serious money to try to get the smell out of my carpet and seats...
I can understand being angry about that. Though the offense wasn’t quite as bad, I was angry with a cat over a car for a while myself. I had an old second car that I had no place to park but in front of my house under some crape myrtles. Unfortunately they drop flowers for most of the summer, and if there’s any moisture at all, leave black stains within a matter of days. I didn’t want to wash my car that often, so I bought a cloth car cover. This worked fine until a cat (I assume, a cat — I never saw it happen) acquired the habit of sharpening its claws on the fabric, which left it in shreds.
I couldn’t afford to keep buying covers, and don’t know what I would have done about it. Maybe spray the fabric with some kind of cat repellent (if there is such a thing), or get lucky and catch the cat at it, and scare it badly enough that it wouldn’t come back. About that time I was getting tired of paying for insurance for two cars, though, and having to take the trouble to keep the battery charged, so I just sold the car instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.