Path: utzoo!attcan!ncrcan!becker!geac!jtsv16!uunet!intercon!ooblick
From: ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: birds threatened by cats
Keywords: cat prevention
Message-ID: <1566@intercon.com>
Date: 25 Nov 89 19:36:00 GMT
References: <791@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> <1565@intercon.com> <3757@ccnysci.UUCP>
Reply-To: ooblick@intercon.UUCP (Mikki Barry)
Distribution: usa
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Lines: 50

In article <3757@ccnysci.UUCP> christ@ccnysci.UUCP (Chris Thompson) writes:
>Also: all (read ALL) migratory birds are protected by international treaty
>and federal law: the owner of a cat is obligated to ensure that their
>pet does not kill protected animals.  I ran into a case of this over this
>past summer: a dog rampaged through a shorebird colony, and ate many of the
>eggs/chicks in the colony.  The local DEC/Warden was ready to shoot the dog
>on sight if it ever did that again.

Dogs != cats.  Let's try this one again.  Dog owners must, by most local
laws, keep control of their animals by keeping them on their own property,
or keeping them on a leash.  Cats are considered by the law to be
DIFFERENT THAN dogs.  Cats are *entitled* to roam on your property.

>Cruelty to animals usually does not include killing them, if it is done
>in a (relatively?) humane manner.  Cruelty  to animals is usually defined
>in terms of torturing or mistreating them.  So, if you kill a cat by
>burning it to death, yes, that is cruelty to animals.  If you shoot it,
>it isn't cruelty, it is merely expedient.

I suggest you check your state cruelty laws.  Most INCLUDE death.

>I can't believe you equated killing a child with killing a cat.  That is
>definitely one of the more asinine things I've heard, and to ascribe that
>feeling to someone you don't even know is obscene.

I was ascribing that feeling to someone who advocated killing cats.  That,
to me, is as obscene and asinine as killing any other living creature,
up to and including people.  Blatent disregard for the lives of creatures
that roam upon the earth can easily, if left unchecked, turn into blatent
disregard of the lives of human creatures.  

>Finally, cats do not have the right to roam my property if I don't want them
>to.  Else, why is it my property?

You really need to check on legal definitions of property.  There are clear
exclusions to your soveriegn rights as property owner.  These include not
being able to shoot things like cats, birds, meter readers, bulldozers
who are tearing up your sidewalk with a permit (or even shooting them
for not having a permit), mailcarriers, etc. etc.  Being a property owner
in this country includes these little inconveniences.  Besides this, check
your local municipal ordinances about discharging firearms in a residential
area.  Ditto with trapping animals within city limits, leaving poisons
where domestic animals can get to them, etc. etc.  For starters, try your
local law library.  Spend some time there.  Get to know the law before
spouting off about it.

It seems pretty strange to me that one can advocate protecting one 
species of animal while promoting killing another.

Mikki Barry


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com