On When it’s Okay to Shoot Cats
In "Birder Admits Killing Cat, but Was It Animal Cruelty?" (and why is "but" the only word not capitalized?) in today’s New York Times, Kate Murphy reports that James M. Stevenson is on trial in Galveston, Texas for shooting a cat with a .22-caliber rifle. The cat, Mama Cat, died.
Let’s deconstruct:
- The question at hand is whether it was animal cruelty or not, and this question hinges on one thing: was the cat feral, or can she have been considered owned by a human (a particular human, who fed her, brought her toys and bedding, and named her).
- The message is that it’s okay to shoot a cat whom no human owns, but it’s not okay to shoot a cat who’s been named by a human. The message is it’s not okay to mess with someone else’s property. But it’s not as if the potential owner, a Mr. Newland, would be compensated, which makes the law doubly twisted because property status is what’s determining whether or not cruelty has taken place (sort of like with hunting), not whether or not Newland will be compensated in some way. But wait . . .
"Whether the cat was feral is the crucial point in this case. Mr. Stevenson was indicted under a state law that prohibited killing a cat ‘belonging to another.’ Prompted by this case, the law was changed on Sept. 1 to include all cats, regardless of ownership."
That’s a relief.
- Stevenson killed Mama Cat because she was stalking endangered shorebirds, and he leads bird-watching tours and is the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society. He also admitted to killing many other cats on his own property. It seems to me that perhaps he could use some kind of mental health evaluation. Lots of people don’t like cats or observe them stalking birds, but few of them shoot and kill the cats. That’s not the action of a balanced, healthy individual. I’m trying to figure out why no one’s talking about his mental health.
- It’s bird lovers vs. cat lovers in the courtroom:
“How people feel about the trial depends on who you talk to,” said Victor Lang, a local historian, adding that bird-watchers and cat fanciers obviously had the strongest views.
Though others may argue passionately about whether Mr. Stevenson should be punished, Mr. Lang said he did not have strong feelings about the case.
“But you see, I’m a dog person,” he said. “If he had shot a dog, then I’d be more upset.”
Ah, there’s the rub. This case isn’t about whether Stevenson’s shooting of Mama Cat was a crime: it’s not about justice. Instead, it’s about cats and birds, and which species is more valued by people. After all, we are the ones who determine whose life has worth, and whose doesn’t.
Feral cats have been a scourge upon ground dwelling birds and songbirds in particular. In many places there are programs in place to remove and destroy feral cat populations. Mr. Stevenson took it upon himself to implement such a program on Galveston island. It was not his place to do so. Many cat owners are irresponsible allowing their cats to breed unchecked and the resulting feral cats put undo environmental pressure on the native fauna, birds amphibians and small mammals are in particular peril.
If cat owners were more responsible and neutered their pets there would be much less of a problem. Few people have problems with pet cats, but when domesticated cats run wild bad ecological impact occurs and beneficial species suffer, species that eat pests like mosquitos the horse fly and mice. I do not condone what Mr. Stevenson did, but I do condone the control of feral cats done humanely with proper oversight and checks
Cheryl,
I do not blame feral cats for doing what they need to do to survive. And I'm in complete agreement that people need to stop breeding cats and make sure all cats are spayed and neutered. There are a couple of readers of Animal Person who are sort of feral cat experts and I'm sure they'll come by and tell us all a couple of things we might not know. Stay tuned!
On a side note the title capitalization looks correct to me, 'but' is the only word in that sentence that would not normally be capitalised — by the (British) method I use anyway.
Study after study has demonstrated that lethal attempts at controlling feral cat populations simply don't work. Shooting one or two cats out of a population merely spurs the others to breed more and may result in an increased feral cat population.
The only thing that has been demonstrated to work at reducing feral
cat populations is humane control in the form of trap, neuter, return, because the gradual decrease in population, combined with
sterilization does not create a vacuum effect.
Even Hawaii, one of those places where cats can pose a particular
threat, is undertaking non-lethal control after finding decades of
lethal control efforts were ineffective.
In areas where rare birds are at risk, it's generally a good idea to
try to take concrete steps to help the birds, like protected nesting
boxes or even using cat-proof fences around nesting grounds. While
some bird enthusiasts feel good about killing cats, this does not
actually protect the birds.
US government studies still place window strikes and cars ahead of
cats as major killers of migratory birds. In many cases roads cut
right across migratory routes. In addition the loss of nesting
grounds in South America is killing off our songbirds. That doesn't
mean it's ok for cats to kill birds, but it means that people who
shoot cats because they want to help birds are missing the larger
picture.
People who care about birds should: a) not eat meat–trees our
songbirds depend on are being cleared to graze cattle, b)buy only
shade grown coffee–this method doesn't kill old trees on coffee
farms, c)discourage/vote against building new roads, d) use decals and other methods to make your windows safer for birds, e) don't feed
birds, deadly diseases that are killing songbirds are being spread by
bird feeders, and f)round up your neighbors' cats and get them
sterilized (hey, you can yell at them for years to do it while they
ignore you or you can take the initiative).
While encouraging "pet owners" to be responsible is important, the
fact remains that many people simply don't bother to alter their cats. Further, there are nearly as many feral "un-owned" cats in the US now as there are companion cats, and very few people are getting any of those cats sterilized. This is the reason why I'm undertaking a massive sterilization effort in my own area. But I still encounter
people simply unwilling to sterilize their animals (or to let me do it for them). It's heartbreaking and frustrating.
Cats have actually been on this continent and many of the islands
since the first Europeans came here. It took hundreds of years to
create the problem we currently encounter, and it's not something we
can solve over night. But in areas where there are low-cost clinics
for ferals or government funded sterilization programs, great progress is being made.
In any case, I'm definitely opposed to shooting cats, but I'm also not the best person to comment here. My experience with feral cats has shown me that it's incredibly cruel to ferals, who are terrified of people, to catch them, hold them several days at a shelter, and then kill them by lethal injection. Shooting is actually a less cruel option compared to that. I hope this case can be used to educate more people about humane control for feral cats.
Emily,
"but was it" would have been lower case in other style guides. That's why it looked weird to me.
It really is hard on ferals to be in shelters and their chance of adoption is basically nil for adults. But managed colonies can work very well by combining neutering, feeding and monitoring to avoid any more dumping of pets at that location. If the risk to birds at that location is really accute the colony can be moved. But shooting animals when the environment supports and invites new animals is simply not going to have much effect on cat population numbers. You'd think a wildlife watcher would be aware of that…
Em,
That's why I think there might be, shall we say, other factors involved in his behavior.
Hey,
There is an order of life when it comes to animals in the wild. Wild tigers stalk their prey, just like the tigers prey stalks its prey, and so on and so forth. That is why they are "Wild" animals. God created and set up this order of life. As far as this guy shooting a cat over a bird is concerned, he is an idiot.
This guy strikes me as the type of person who would kill a human if he felt the urge to do so. A killer is a killer, sport , survival, or in anger, it's all the same
Having seen hundred of flightless birds massacred by a single introduced cat I have some sympathy for being concerned about the birds who evolved in a world will very sparse predators not dozens of deserted pets. But the answer is to 'undesert' the pets–not blow them away. Both animals deserve consideration.
The displacement of fertile feral cats with neutered animals and feeding programs makes perfect sense to me. I am in favor of humane methods of control, what I am not in favor of is an ever increasing population of domestic and feral animals reeking havoc upon the native fauna while cat activists interfere with any method to control feral populations. Domesticated cats and their feral progeny do not belong in the ecosystem, their presence puts undo environmental pressure on the native fauna and displaces native wild cats and other small mammalian and aviary predators. It is up to us as stewards of the environment to restore the natural balance, preferably through non lethal means and management of pet sales and breeding practices.
Ground nesting birds, particularly coastal nesting birds, are at particular risk from feral cats, however Mr. Stevenson had no legal or ethical right to shoot that cat under the bridge. Hopefully the new Texas law that makes it illegal to shoot any cat will not contribute to the problem feral cats place on the Galveston coastal environment. A plan still needs to be enacted that will reduce the damage these animals cause in the environment.
"Unintroducing" a species from an ecosystem is sort of like trying to unring a bell. I think the only option that respects the rights of animals is to let things be, to stay as hands off as we can.
Feral cats are a somewhat unique situation, as many of them are at least semi-dependent, and feeding them to help them, in addition to helping the cats who are present, increases their birth and survival rates such that you cannot help them without furthering the problem. That's where TNR comes in, so you can help the cats who exist without contributing to the problem.
Any way, I mainly wanted to highlight Neva's point. Many animal rights activists criticize Ted Nugent for shooting feral cats, yet see nothing wrong with trapping, holding, transporting, and lethally injecting them. The perspective of the killer ought to be irrelevant, in this situation it's the perspective of the cat that matters. If people oppose Ted Nugent's shooting of feral cats (as they should), they ought to oppose the even more cruel methods used by most animal control agencies and groups like PETA.
1. If the cat belonged to someone, then it becomes an issue of private property. But who owns the birds? Since wild birds are owned by everyone (or no one) then the privately held cat is re-creating the "Tragedy of the Commons". One argument cancels out the other.
2. While I'm not in favor of your average city dweller blasting away at feral cats, having lived much of my adult life in the country, I know that there are times when you just take care of the problem yourself – you put the horse down, kill the skunk in the chicken-coop, or shoot the bear before he (or she) eats you. Many people have suggested "re-locating" the cat, which means either dumping it somewhere else, and believe me, cats are capable of walking many miles to return to the area they consider home – or taking it to the pound, where it will be euthanisized, but only after spending it's last week on earth in complete terror.
wtf – the guy did the appropriate thing – there are zillions of feral cats.