Cops: Trap kills cat; man faces animal cruelty charge

Times Leader ^ | February 10, 2010 | Edward Lewis

[TheBattman]

I didn’t mean to imply that charging to drop off animals was a problem for me.

But lets be practical. If I am surrendering my own pet, by my own decisions - then I have zero problem with paying a surrender fee (though many people would just turn the animal loose/dump it somewhere). I do realize there are costs involved.

But if someone else’s pet or a ferrel pet is coming onto my property and causing trouble - why should I be forced to pay the pound to take the animal?

And your proverbial annoying birds are wild animals that animal control has no jurisdiction over. Nor does the local pound take any wild animals. Period.

So your comparison falls rather flat.

There are mechanisms to deal with nuisance wildlife here.

[BagCamAddict]

If someone else’s pet is coming onto your property and causing problems, that PERSON is the responsible party (to pay for the damage, and/or pay for the Animal Control services [impound and/or killing]), NOT the taxpayer. Analogy: A 16-yr old kid hits your mailbox with his parent's car — parents are responsible, not taxpayers.

As for ferrel (feral) pet — there is no such thing. Feral means wild. Not pet. I know you know that, just clarifying for anyone else reading the post.

But as for who should pay for Animal Control services (impound and/or killing) of those ferals — This is where it gets tricky. Problem A: If there is a fee for you to drop off your own pet to be killed at the shelter, but there is no fee to drop off a stray, then that will simply promote everyone saying “it's not my pet, it's a stray” so they can avoid the fee. Problem B: Animal Control is always under-funded.

Personally, I believe Animal Control is a community/society responsibility, and therefore it should be paid for using tax dollars. If the society in question was more responsible (spay/neuter, and not allowing animals to roam and become pregnant, etc.), the Animal Control budget wouldn't be very high. In an irresponsible community, they should suffer the financial consequences by having a higher tax-funded Animal Control budget. So in a perfect world, it would be a self-correcting problem because taxpayers would get fed up with huge Animal Control expenses, so they would become more responsible with their animals, thus reducing the need for Animal Control services.

I live in a city that is extremely irresponsible with their animals, yet the Animal Control budget is ridiculously low, so the problem will never get any better.

As for my comparison falling flat: Perhaps to you it does because you are calling birds “wild animals”, whereas you are not considering feral cats (for example) “wild animals.” Feral cats are as much wild animals as birds are, but perhaps not defined as such according to local laws/regulations. Various jurisdictions have different definitions of feral cats/dogs. A feral cat is a cat that was born “in the wild” and is “wild” just like a bird is. The difference is that the feral cat is the RESULT of an irresponsible human who previously abandoned an intact cat, leaving it outside, to fend for itself, to become pregnant (or impregnate), and give birth to kittens who are now wild animals. The original human who abandoned the intact animal is responsible for the original sin. Society is now responsible for the resulting offspring. As a society, we have a choice in how we deal with these offspring. Do we kill them as pests? Do we ignore them and allow them to fend for themselves the way we do with Deer? Do we do something in between, such as offering them food, the way we do with Birds? Do we trap, spay/neuter, and return them, so they don't have to die, but they no longer reproduce? Do taxpayers pay for that spay/neuter? (BTW, spay/neuter is a less expense to Animal Control than killing.)

Everyone has a different opinion on what we should do with feral animals (cats and dogs). It's a contentious subject, indeed.