posted on May 25, 2001 06:08:57 PM new
Cat lady arrested in SF Bay Area.
Seems a woman was keeping a home for 200 cats, separate from her own residence. The woman was arrested for animal cruelty. The cats were siezed by the local Animal Shelter. At first the shelter was going to adopt out the cats, but now says the cats are feral and must all be destroyed. According to the shelter's operator, "We're doing this because we love the cats."
posted on May 25, 2001 06:24:39 PM new
I love animals (cats to a lesser extent)but what choice is there? You've got to admit releasing 200 wild cats isn't the smartest thing in the world.
Sounds like the cat lady might not have had all her oars in the water.
posted on May 25, 2001 07:01:47 PM new
I guess it's the way of the world. When my dad used to say, "I'm only doing this because I love you," it was usually follwed by something unpleasant.
So what's next, euthanizing the homeless because they are "feral" too? If the cats were kept caged for a month, they would no longer be feral. If it was me, lacking funds to keep the cats, I would take them somewhere and release them in the wild. And yes, I am a cat lover, too.
The shelter operator gives new meaning to the expression, "kill them with kindness."
posted on May 25, 2001 07:13:43 PM newSo what's next, euthanizing the homeless because they are "feral" too?
If a herd of cows is exposed to mad cow disease they are destroyed, if a village is exposed to ebola they are quarantined. Are you asking for equal rights for animals?
I would take them somewhere and release them in the wild.
Would that solve the problem?
I'm a dog lover myself, and in a case of 200 wild dogs I'd still have to accept the fact they'd have to be destroyed.
posted on May 25, 2001 08:04:52 PM new" posted A story on the cats, it wasn't necessarily the story that twinsoft read or heard or saw. Here's another story with different numbers in it".
So now you show 179 cats, and that still ain't 200. I'm closer to Petaluma than either of you and the local paper says "about 120". Now what?
posted on May 25, 2001 08:13:09 PM newSo now you show 179 cats
No, if you read it again you'll see the second article said "at least 179 cats." And the issue isn't the really number of cats anymore is is it? It's your baiting.
posted on May 25, 2001 09:25:56 PM new
I am quoting from the TV news broadcasts, both San Jose and San Francisco. Of course, 20 cats plus or minus isn't really the issue. The issue is the "Humane Society's" stand that killing cats is in the cat's own best interest.
posted on May 25, 2001 09:36:40 PM new
Uaru, I am commenting on the irony of the statement, "We're doing this (killing the cats) because we love them." Two hundreds cats are not a ground-shaking matter. I personally feel there are other alternatives. Mad cow disease is fatal anyway, and dangerous to humans. Two hundred wild dogs, near a town, would also be dangerous to humans, but that's not the case here. Releasing 200 cats in a large state park would not pose a danger to anyone.
I am not suggesting "equal" rights for animals, but some rights, yes.
posted on May 25, 2001 09:38:52 PM new
twinsoft - I understand how you must feel - I love cats (animals) too, but in some cases, sadly, it really is for the best interest of the animal.
posted on May 25, 2001 10:35:41 PM new"Releasing 200 cats in a large state park would not pose a danger to anyone".
That logic takes one to a release rather than euthanasia of ALL abandoned cats by the humane societies.
Some would have small chance of survival and a massive disease generating number of carcasses would rot in the forests. Those that did survive would continue to breed uncontrolled, and it wouldn't be long before the 200 were 600 and 18,000 and on.
There would be cats wandering about, always hungry and gradually reverting to survival instinct behaviors in which everything is fair game.
Within five years, even with only a small survival percentile, there would be millions of cats roaming the areas between Sonoma Co. and Monterey, each generation larger than the last, and all consuming everything possible all of the time. Babies would be devoured, homes invaded, people in mass exodus heading for the safety of Fresno. San Francisco would be, oncee again, the biggest cathouse west of the Pecos and the din of constant meowing and caterwauling would be heard for hundreds of miles around, even by ships at sea. No humans would survive and their rotting corpses would in turn fester the cities and foster new disease forcing the trillions of cats to move on south.
There would be no hope of containment. Even nuclear blasts would hardly dent their population growth, and the resultant mutant cats would be even larger and fiercer than their forebears.
The cats would take the west coast away and would not be stopped on their way into Mexico.
Releasing the cats would be the end of life as we know it, in fact, the end of life at all.
posted on May 25, 2001 10:36:45 PM new
This just in: the New York Times, Washington Post, and Miami Herald-Tribune are sending teams of reporters out to Petaluma in the hope of getting an accurate count of the cats. Should be easier than the last time they tried something along those lines.
-gaffan-
posted on May 25, 2001 10:39:35 PM newtwinsoft,
I would take them somewhere and release them in the wild
I don't doubt that you have a love for animals but your statement above reflects a grossly irresponsible viewpont. I would like to think that your heart has run away with your head.
Feral cats that are not native to your country cause irrepable damage to native wildlife, often to the point of decimation.
Here in Australia we have the same problem. The cat by its nature is a killer and many native species have no defence from it. I am sure that in your country the same situation exists.
The pleasant image of a purring friendly tabby asleep in front of your fire is far from the reality of a cat gone feral. They are leagues apart.
If your professed love for animals is heartfelt then you will know that endagering your native wildlife species by releasing feral cats is a ridiculous and harmful viewpoint.
Bob, Downunder but never down.
posted on May 25, 2001 10:48:07 PM new
Twinsoft said If the cats were kept caged for a month, they would no longer be feral. If it was me, lacking funds to keep the cats, I would take them somewhere and release them in the wild.
Sorry, if these cats are truly feral, they probably can't be tamed. Sometimes young kittens can be tamed, but adult cats rarely can be, and are therefore unadoptable. By keeping these cats, the shelter would be unable to accept tame/homeless cats that could be adopted into a home.
Just turning the cats loose is not the answer, either. As KRS so greatly summed up , cats reproduce quickly. They can carry diseases, and an unmonitored colony can be a huge nuisance.
Some organizations do Trap-Neuter-Release programs, which is somewhat controversial but works in certain situations. TNR takes a lot of volunteer time, so people shouldn't fault the shelter if they aren't able to perform that service.
This is a difficult situation, but I hate to see shelter workers vilified. They're in that line of work because they do love animals. Unfortunately, that sometimes means making hard choices.
posted on May 25, 2001 11:10:27 PM new
Of course nobody wants to destroy those cats if there are other options, but I don't see any realistic options. The woman that purchased a house for them probably thought she was doing a good thing. I feel she was terribly misguided in her actions. I can't believe she purchased a house to torture cats, even though that seems to be the result.
Moving the cats would just be moving the problem and prolonging the problem.
posted on May 25, 2001 11:20:26 PM new
I don't live in a bottle and I am aware of your arguments. I'm not going to address them individually, except to say that I disagree. The argument for euthanasia has merits, but I disagree with it. The obvious parallel is abortion. How many times has the argument been used that since a baby would be disadvantaged, it is in the baby's own best interest to be aborted? As I said, I disagree with that idea, though in some cases euthanasia is appropriate.
Bitsandbobs, it is Man's tinkering that is creating problems for wildlife. It's obvious to even a casual observer that Man is doing a lousy job of managing this planet. We already have "irrepable damage to native wildlife." Yes, many animals have no defence against cats. Mice, squirrels, even a slow-moving possum. But what defence does any animal have against Man, and Man's never-ending quest to subjugate this planet? We're destroying ourselves, and a few wild cats aren't going to make a big difference. Not even KRS' laughable nightmare scenario.
posted on May 25, 2001 11:33:04 PM new
Uaru, I agree the woman was terribly misguided and did an awful thing, despite her intentions. She apparently is guilty of animal cruelty. I am not trying to defend her actions at all.
posted on May 26, 2001 12:58:18 AM new
KRS, in the locked thread you accused me of posting here for no reason other than to harass others. In your long post, you also tried to involve the moderators.
In this thread you have attacked me twice. I ignored your first rude comment. Diana made it clear a long time ago that accusing veteran posters of trolling would not be allowed. Your remarks are personal attacks and a breach of etiquette.
I hope that the moderators will warn KRS against this practice which was explicitly addressed by Diana months ago.
posted on May 26, 2001 01:05:59 AM new
Actually, you have your facts quite wrong. The stipulation was that a person would not call another a troll, but that comentary on a manner of posting was not that. As usual, you twist the truth to suit you, and you've now made it quite clear that your entire purpose in bringing this thread was your hope of drawing me into a situation which you could then CLAIM, however erroneously, that I had insulted you.
The plain truth is that I see no need to insult you as you ddo quite well at that by yourself.
By the way, when did you, twinsoft, take the name 'Matilda'?
posted on May 26, 2001 01:10:16 AM new
...and is it safe to assume, since you refer to yourself as a "veteran poster" above, that we have at long last seen and end to your referring to yourself as "relatively new" or "not very experienced" in the OAI board world?
-gaffan-
posted on May 26, 2001 01:17:59 AM new
I particularly liked the odd comparison in "The argument for euthanasia has merits, but I disagree with it. The obvious parallel is abortion. How many times has the argument been used that since a baby would be disadvantaged, it is in the baby's own best interest to be aborted?"
