man shoots neighbor's cat. OK or not?

[HAL]

Are we still talking about [quote] Correct?

[5150]

He just sounds like an asshole, he'd find all his flora and fauna poisoned if it was my cat.

[Pies4shaw]

Is he related to the folk who have decided to deal with a feral goat problem by releasing dingoes who will be poisoned on time-delay after they have got rid of the goats? Evil things, people.

[The Prototype]

[David]

Interesting question, Stui. The law is the law, but what's interesting here is the broader ethical implications of the act � and that boils down to a single question, which is, how should we think of the cat?

a) as a creature with 'personhood', with the right to life that that entails?
b) as a creature with very limited rights, such as the right to not be treated with undue cruelty?
or, c) as a mere possession owned by the next door neighbour (that is, its rights only matter insofar as the owner is affected by its death)?

To categorise these views, you might say a) is the animal rights view advocated for by Peter Singer and others, b) is reflected by the legal status quo and c) is the way animals were traditionally viewed before animal cruelty laws began to be enforced.

Let's start with b) first. If our main concern is cruelty, then it probably cannot be said that the cat was killed any more cruelly than a cow or a pig in an abattoir. We place far more social worth on domesticated animals like cats and dogs, but ethically speaking there's no justifiable reason to place them on a higher pedestal (and, indeed, when it comes time for feral cat culls, they are effectively treated as expendable). So if we're happy with pigs being shot in the head en masse so we can eat bacon, it would be remarkably hypocritical to complain about the same thing happening to a cat.

But of course, to the owner, this wasn't just any cat � it was perhaps his most prized and loved possession. And this is where c) kicks in, and the fine starts to seem appropriate. But I think it's worth asking whether we can really still justifiably treat animals like objects when we know for a fact that they are sentient beings with memory, desires, subjective experience of the world and ability to feel pleasure and pain. And that's why Singer's idea of 'speciesism' remains so compelling, because, as he points out, there's really no conceivable ethical justification for treating these living creatures like objects (as we still do, in so many areas of laws).

And that's where we get to a). If, as animal rights activists argue, we need to recognise the personhood of animals, then obviously there could be no justification for shooting a person for walking on your property. Or could there be? Because if a cat's life matters, then so do all the native animals, and the guy could perhaps justifiably claim an act of self-defence on behalf of his animals.

So, however you look at it, I don't think you could argue for a harsher penalty or greater ethical condemnation for what he did. If his animals were in genuine danger and the cat wasn't caused undue pain, it wasn't clearly wrong of him to do it.

[Pies4shaw]

Scum sucking bastard. It's a pity the gun didn't accidentally blow his pathetic head off.

[Tannin]

The judge screwed up, big time.

1: Landholders have the right to control feral pest species on their property. You don't need permission, or a permit of any kind. It is your right. *

2: You as the landholder can be prosecuted for failing to control feral species. (This certainly applies to certain declared plant species I know about, I'm not sure which if any animals are included. Failing to control pest animal species will certainly make you a pariah amongst your neighbours - people get really shirty with a landholder who refuses to control ferals and buggers things up for everybody else.)

3: Cats are a feral pest.

4: Pet owners are required by law to keep their pets under control and, where appropriate, restrict them to the boundaries of their own property.

5: Landholders have the legal right to destroy animals which are worrying their livestock. A landholder can, for example, shoot a dog if (according to that landholder) it is worrying his sheep. This applies even if the animal is a pet and wearing a collar. **

6: The cat in question was not wearing a collar to identify it as a pet, and was thus indistinguishable from a feral animal. This is the pet owner's responsibility and he failed to discharge it.

Summary: no case to answer. That judge should be strung up on a predator-proof fence.


* Of course, the method you use must itself be legal. For example, to use phostoxin to fumigate rabbit burrows, you must hold a current Agricultural Chemical User's Permit; to use a rifle you must be suitably licenced for it; to use 1080 you must have a 1080 endorsement on your permit and follow the prescribed procedures, and so on.

** I have personal experience with this one - a scumbag neighbour once deliberately left fresh sheep offal lying around on his land to entice my partner's dog onto his property so that he could shoot it. There was no question of the dog harming his livestock, but the police could do absolutely nothing about it, other than inspect his shooting licence. (He hid his automatic weapons before they called, of course.)

[Tannin]

[watt price tully]

I'm a cat & dog man but I support the bloke shooting the cat - (cat owners me included need to responsible for their cats - I place responsibility in part with the owners)

This guy (below - John Wamsley) used to wear a dead cat as a hat & he also set up & managed "Earth Sanctuaries" about 100,000 hectares of protected land (cat free) to assit native flora & fauna:

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2005/s1330004.htm

[Skids]

[watt price tully]

[Morrigu]

[think positive]

[Tannin]

[Tannin]

Yes, he sounds a bit gung-ho. If the cat had been wearing a collar, it would be much harder to justify his action.

Feral cats, in my experience, can be mangy-looking things or pictures of glossy-coated health. You seem to see the mangy ones in the cities mostly. In the bush, only the fittest creatures survive.

PS: emotion doesn't come into this. It's about facts. But for the record, I don't much care for dogs as a rule, and I am very fond of cats.