Good luck with that.
Not IMHO. Even in the United States which has a much stronger tendency towards keeping indoors-only cats vis-a-vis someplace like Britain, there are a lot of free-roaming, unchipped, uncollared pets. Whatever lack of wisdom that may show, it is common enough.
Personally I would never take a chance at killing someone’s beloved pet unless I was pretty certain from long observation that the animal in question really was a feral. Of course I wouldn’t shoot any animal in the “pet” category anyway, because I’m a soft-hearted urban guy who doesn’t respond like that to those sort of critters. I don’t make a hobby out of it, but I’ve rescued and rehomed a baker’s dozen or so feral kittens and one abused, abandoned puppy over the past few years - all now happy, fixed pets to the best of my knowledge. But even if I were more shooty and it were all perfectly legal in my jurisdiction, I’d have no wish to deal with an angry/weepy owner.
71,83,87,88,89,93, etc.
No. It exactly matches the pattern of the missing housepet, lost a block or so away, the same day it was skilled. Tabby patterns are almost as good as fingerprints.
Well, there is the argument that neutered feral cats are likely to defend their territories against other feral cats; thus (arguably) it makes better sense to sterilize and release, as otherwise one simply opens a new ecological niche for un-sterilized ferals to inhabit without resistance.
The goal here is to ensure that a self-sustaining feral population does not develop. Obviously, trap-and-release cannot work on its own, one has to increase neutering among the non-feral population, and increase awareness that abandoning cats is not a good idea.
As a side-benefit, neutering ferals does not impose the same concerns on the humans who carry out the plan as simply killing them does.
Most people who get involved in animal welfare do so because they like animals; killing animals may be a disagreeable necessity from time to time, to avoid suffering or for other reasons; but a plan that is for the public benefit but that does not include the necessity of killing large numbers of animals is likely to gain more full-hearted adherance than one that requires a lot of killing. Trap-and-release arguably leaves the individual animals involved no worse off than before.
Given that such plans often have a very large “volunteer” component, this factor is significant.
Here is post 71:
Point 1 therein is simply an assertion on your part.
Point 2 is certainly evidence, but it is not remotely close to settling the point.
Cite for the claim that the patterns are an exact match? And cite for the claim that tabby patterns are almost as good as fingerprints?
What does the unsterilized feral do when it encounters resistance?
My hypothesis is that replacing trap-and-release with trap-and-kill, while maintaining all the other programs (increase neutering among non-feral, increase awareness) will be more effective and less expensive than trap, neuter, and release.
In other aspects of society, we seem willing, if not eager, to subordinate personal beliefs about morality to a determination of the greater societal good.
I think your claim is correct: volunteers might not be available for trap and kill from among the animal welfare crowd. But perhaps they could be replaced by people like this vet, who enjoy killing for its own sake. What would be the down side to that?
As I pointed out in the other thread, enjoying the actual killing of other animals tracks highly with sociopathic traits. Doing so while saying “the only good feral tomcat is one with a large arrow through its head” is extremely disturbing.
There’s a reason why we want vets who love animals and hate to kill them. It’s the same reason you wouldn’t want a murderer to be a doctor. We need you to be the type who doesn’t want to kill.
I want my vet to care enough about not killing that doing so is something she will try hard not to do. And apparently neither did the organization employing her, since she’s been fired.
You want to kill feral cats, you do so because you think it is the best thing for them in the long run, not because you think they’re only good when they are dead.
Probably, at least under most circumstances*.
That fact though doesn’t really inform my opinion of this young woman, though. IMHO, at least from what facts I’ve seen, she behaved recklessly. Not to mention tone deaf as regards to the likely effects on her own career. There is also nothing intrinsically wrong with eating dogs, for example. But any vet crowing in public about the delicious dog meal he enjoyed on his last trip to Asia would likely face a rapid drop-off in business.
*The Bayesian Belief Network calculates the optimal decision for management of a small population of feral cats to be TNR+ kitten removal and for a medium or large population of feral cats to be Trap-Euthanize. From the above article.
While we do believe in forcing some people to not do things they think are moral, that’s not the issue here. You’re indicating the opposite, of doing something you think is immoral because society says it is moral.
Such subordination goes one direction only. It only seems to go the other direction when you are stuck with a true dilemma. And, even then, only under extreme circumstances.
I assume you are thinking of forcing people to do business with certain classes of people that they don’t want to do business with. The actual issue is forcing them to not discriminate. It’s just that you can’t do one without the other. It’s that you can’t have a free society if there is discrimination.
On the other hand, there is another option here. You can reduce the population of feral felines without trapping and killing them. And once you put in the trapping part and insuring a humane death, it’s really not that much cheaper, anyways.
And this is why I made my post in the other thread. The downside is that we don’t want to encourage more people who enjoy killing for its own sake, because doing so tracks with the dark tetrad of antisocial traits. Those are the traits we term as “evil,” those that harm society. It’s in our best interest as a society to stigmatize them.
They aren’t the same thing morally, but what you are asking is like asking why we don’t have murderers handle the execution of criminals on death row. You’ve just created a demand for murderers, which at best won’t affect supply, and, at worst, will increase it.
We do not want to increase the supply of people who enjoy killing for its own sake. We don’t want people who kill animals in ways not proven to be humane, bragging about how much they enjoy it, and, in this case, being so clueless so as to not realize the negative personal consequences.
(She actually thought she would be awarded as “vet of the year,” And you want her to be the one allowed to go out and hunt animals? I don’t want her touching animals.)
Of course, that’s just disturbing people like this woman. What about people who don’t really care either way? There are downsides there, too.
We want people who care about animal welfare because, if they err, they will err on the correct side. We don’t want someone even indifferent to animal suffering involved. We want reluctance, so that we know they are doing it because it has to be done.
It tracks back to the example with people. (Though, again, I stress that they are not morally equivalent.) We don’t want the person who is indifferent to killing to be deciding whether someone gets death penalty. We want someone who is reluctant to do so and would do so when needed.
And let me make this clear one more time: I do not say that hunting is itself immoral. I know plenty of hunters who clearly care about the animals they are hunting. They may get some enjoyment out of the experience, but that enjoyment is not killing for its own sake. (Most of them really like game meat, for one thing. They enjoy the satisfaction of providing food for themselves.) To tell the truth, I’ve met maybe two people in my life that seem to enjoy hunting too much.
It’s at least equally plausible – if not much MORE so - that she was fired because her employers feared the public backlash led by a small, but highly vocal, minority.
Public Outcry?
Something Gov. Arnold Schwarzennegger found out when he tried to save money by decreasing wait times for euthanizing animals in shelters:
What pol or public official wants to be known as “The Kitten and Puppy Killer”?
The same reason stories like this vet’s inspires outrage, while stories like this are considered heartwarming:
Sobbing Kids Reunite With Their Lost Cat After Two Months
As I mentioned earlier, about half of these ferals are adopted. Why would you want to kill a healthy animal people will take on as a pet?
You should also consider that pet care is a 60 Billion Dollar a Year Industry. That, plus the fact that much of animal welfare work is funded and worked pro bono by animal lovers.
A fair percentage of the SDMB population favor forcing pharmacists to distribute substances that the pharmacists believe are used for an immoral end.
I personally am in favor of being guided by the will of the public.
83,87,88,89,93
You’re so special.
None of those posts have any such citations. Do you not understand what is meant by “citation?”
This is the underlying implication that makes this entire story so fucked up. I say thank god for social media and her “tone-deafness” here. It got this sick fuck fired and hopefully away from cats in a professional setting forever.
Nevermind; I should finish reading the thread before posting…