Posted on 04/12/2005 11:34:55 PM PDT by flashbunny
You don't know what the heck you are talking about. Please reinsert your brain before posting again.
Like I said...we need to work at a permanent solution from the beginning...not this dangerous easy selfish back door temporary solution....many cats are just going to be maimed and die a slow death....
Not always.
Once your cat is out of your yard it's fair game bub.
No, it's not that way here.
The last guy who tried to ignore The Rules (in a non-cat related incident) has seen his professional career and marriage suffer as a result, and we hear that his church publicly announced that he's started drinking again. His life is going down the toilet. That is the fate of those who disobey The Rules.
If you don't like The Rules, don't come to this neighborhood.
I grew up in the country in Texas, and I now live in the country in California, so I think I am fairly well acquained with rural habits and attitudes. I didn't say that this measure did give anyone the right to shoot cats on their home territory. But unrestrained cats do roam, often widely, and when Mr. A's Tigger sets foot on Mr. B's property, Mr. B would be within his "rights" to shoot Tigger. Mr. B may then "shovel and shut up," but people are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, and when Mr. A finds out just what happened to Tigger, he may then find it within his "rights" to shoot Mr. B's hound dog the next time he gets out of the fence again and comes trotting down the road. This is where the Hatfield/McCoy aspect comes in. People get very, very testy about other people shooting their animals, even when they should have controlled them themselves in the first place. If you don't believe that this measure ups the potential for human-on-human violence, just look at some of the veiled threats on this thread.
As for other methods for controlling cats, there are plenty. For true ferals that can't be rehabilitated, you trap them and euthanize them. They end up just as dead, yes, but at least you can weed out the ones that are totally uncontrollable or too sick to get well from those who can be placed somewhere. And lots of places are now supporting feral "colonies," where volunteers trap, neuter, and release the animals, then feed them until they die of old age. This is work, yes, and I agree that it should not be done on the taxpayer's dime -- but there are plenty of people who are nutsy enough about animals to do this sort of thing, if they are simply allowed to do so.
"Anyway, you're missing my point. I don't think idea of shooting feral cats is that bad, but I think a lot of house cats could be mistaken as feral cats and shot. That's my problem."
Shooting feral cats is legal in many states.
How come we don't here of stories where people start shooting housecats because of the law, due to mistaken identity or on purpose?
That's because there are none. In fact, this issue parallels the concealed carry movement in many ways. Those against it argue based on emotion without any facts. And they claim that the passage of concealed carry laws would lead to wild west shootouts or incidents of road rage where concealed carry holders go nuts. They haven't been able to come up with any examples though.
Come on, since it's already legal in many other states you should be able to find plenty of examples where 'evil bloodthirsty cat haters' went around and shot somone's pet and later claimed they thought it was feral.
Go ahead. I'll wait. But if you can't find a bunch of stories that by your line of thought should exist, will you admit your concern is unfounded???
Really? The Rule on my property is once it's on my property, I do what I want with it. My dog loves cat's. She finds them quite tasty.
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.