One other cost factor to consider is that it’s probably a lot easier to raise funds for trap, neuter, release than it is for trap and kill due to the likely attitudes of the people donating.
I don’t agree in this case. That’s the reason the other woman in the OP was fired (and I don’t think she should have been), but in this case this woman was a veterinarian who had boasted about killing animals in a way that would deter a hell of a lot of people from taking their pets to her. You would not have to soft-hearted to have qualms about leaving your pet, especially a tomcat, with someone who actually enjoys killing them. You’d go to a different vet, because this is an open market.
I imagine that’s true. But I expect that the loss could be easily made up in public funding, given the health hazards associated with an extant feral cat population.
I have a male (neutered) cat, adopted from a shelter. I wouldn’t have qualms about letting this women treat him, because her focus seems clearly aimed at feral cats; I don’t see any kind of animus towards all cats.
Presumably, be forced into a less viable territory, leading to a lower population density.
Probably. All things being equal …
The difference here is that we are talking about programs that have a very sizable volunteer component to them.
I don’t think you can round up volunteers by asking them to subordinate their personal beliefs “to a determination of the greater societal good”. Particularly where the “good” is some increase in effectiveness of a program that can be accomplished without the killing.
In essence, if one insists on a kill program, one is likely to have a much smaller pool of support for it. Is the difference in effectiveness worth losing that coverage? I suspect it isn’t.
I can foresee a number of problems with replacing a volunteer group that cares about animals with one that positively enjoys killing them …
For one, judging by this lady, they may not be all that discriminating about who they kill; for another, enjoying killing pet-type animals is sometimes associated with a bunch of negative personality traits … a recruitment aimed specifically at those who enjoy killing cats and dogs may create a team with some problems.
So we seem to agree that on a long enough time line, they’re likely to end up with at least a few cases of the type I described. Cool. You seemed to be overlooking it.
Oh, no – I was questioning whether there would be a statistically significant number of such incidents – I absolutely agree that the number would be non-zero at some point.
I’m suggesting we don’t know. We’re speculating on how much free labor would be lost, and how much additional labor might be gained.
From your link:
So even if I were to accept, as gospel, the truth of the McDonald triad, it clearly rests on the presence of all three, or any two of the three, factors. Nothing in that link suggests worry should arise from the presence of only a single indicator. Does it?
And I further read:
So these caveats suggest that taking it as gospel would be …eh…somewhat premature.
Comments? Did I miss a Facebook post which showed our bow-happy vet has an obsession with fire setting or persistent bedwetting?
Well, certainly. We are speculating. I think it is a safe speculation that a program run on volunteer basis by a bunch of animal lovers is going to suffer a major drop in support if it required killing, as opposed to not.
I’m not suggesting that this lady is a psychopath, merely that a recruitment drive based, as you suggested, on people who enjoy killing dogs and cats - and then set loose upon the neighbourhood - may have adverse consequences, for two reasons:
(1) because such persons may not be ver discriminating about what animals the kill, as their motive is not animal welfare, but enjoying the deaths. This lady is a case in point - allegedly, she killed a domestic, not feral, cat.
(2) That people who enjoy killing dogs and cats are sometimes associated with sociopathic or psychopathic traits. Note the term “associated”. One does not have to demonstrate that each of them has the full McDonald Triad in each person to make that observation. Rather, the Triad merely demonstrates that association.
In any events, the doubts as to the utility of the Triad are typically aimed at the very necessity to ahve all three elements. I don’t think anyone doubts that enjoying killing dogs and cats is a bad sign.
For scolarly research, see People and Animals, Kindness and Cruelty: Research
Directions and Policy Implications, Frank R. Ascione (sorry, a PDF).
There appears to be somewhat of a consensus that links enjoying killing of pet-like animals to other problems.
This makes a certain amount of sense. Cats and dogs are bred by people specifically because they elicit empathy. Enjoying killing them may be associated with some anti-social deficiency in empathy more generally - which leads to other problems.
So, recruiting a posse of volunteers purely on the basis that they enjoy killing cats (or dogs), and you risk that, statistically, a certain number of them are likely to be anti-social in other areas.
I don’t. I agree that some support will wane, but I’m not persuaded it wouldn’t be offset by new volunteers that were more comfortable with the new goals.
Well, she’s only a case in point if she killed a domestic, and not feral cat. DrDeth’s bluster aside, that fact remains in contention; you cannot assume the truth of what you’re trying to prove in order to prove it.
There’s no link, PDF or otherwise, there.
From that study:
(emphasis added)
So far as I can tell, that paper suggests that the cause maltreatment or domestic violence, and the effect is animal cruelty – not the other way around. Moreover, in the discussion of “cruelty,” the examples include “…witnessed most often involved hitting, beating, or kicking and throwing objects at an animal.” While killing is also mentioned, the killing of an animal believed to be feral does not fit with the other examples given.
In short, this study doesn’t support your claim.
From that study’s abstract:
This doesn’t seem to fit either, although I can’t get the full study without a subscription.
Nope. From that link:
(Emphasis added).
No, none of the links you provided say any such thing. I notice that you merely supplied the links, and failed to extract and quote the specific supporting text from any of them that would have shown the claim you’re making. If you had tried to do this, you’d have discovered what I did: that the conclusion you offered was not in fact supported by the studies you cite.
A threshold question may be “cruelty.” As I mentioned above, this action – an arrow to the head, causing instant death – is not per se cruelty. It’s more consistent with a merciful, quick killing.
I don’t agree the killing was cruel, and I don’t agree that it fits any of the studies you’ve offered here.
Going forward, if you have a study that you believe supports your thesis, might I suggest providing not only the link, but a short quotation from the study that explicitly supports the claim you’re making?
What do you think my thesis is? You appear to believe I’m making a claim that animal cruelty somehow causes anti-social behavior.
Here’s a hint: I’m not.
Congratulations on kicking the stuffing out of that straw-man of your own design, though! I’m afraid your little cock-a-doodle of victory is quite misplaced, as you have not, in fact, addressed the actual argument.
Rather, my claim is that animal cruelty is a “red flag” for the possibility of other anti-social problems - which is exactly what the numerous studies I have already provided demonstrate.
Note the part you yourself so nicely quoted above:
How you can conclude from that quote that the study does not demonstrate that animal cruelty is a “red flag” is anyone’s guess.
Similarly, the psychiatry link had this to say about animal cruelty as a “red flag”:
Seems pretty determinative to me. And look at the figure 5 table!
Moreover, I disagree that this lady did not exhibit “cruelty”. The “cruelty” lies not simply in the act of killing the cat, which may have been totally painless for the cat, but her evident enjoyment of it, as demonstrated by her emails and picture.
But again, my interest is limited. Believe what you want to believe.
The problem, as I mentioned before and will remind you again now: animal “abuse” covers a wide range of behaviors and does NOT seem to reach this particular behavior.
In other words, you’re assuming that what she did was “abuse,” and then proving that her behavior was a red flag. But it wasn’t ‘abuse’ within the meaning of that study.
Can you point to the definition of “cruelty” that encompasses not the act, but her reaction to it?
If she euthanized a terminally-ill puppy in her office and cried, it’s not cruel to the puppy. But if she administered the exact same injection and the exact same puppy died, does it become cruel to the puppy if she gave herself a fist bump and said, “Woo hooh?”
If your cat got loose in the hospital and then ran out the door, according to what seems to be her criteria, it would now be a feral and fair game.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, you cannot guarantee a clean humane kill every time with a bow or gun and you cannot guarantee that the animal you think is feral is not someone’s escaped pet. A veterinarian is held to higher standards. They should want to return lost pets to their owners and if an animal does need to be removed from a wild population they should want to do it humanely.
And once again, it does not matter that she made a quick kill, because what if she didn’t?
I missed this before. I’d say that it’d be evidence that it might not be a pet, but it wouldn’t be proof. That cat does look unusually fat and glossy for a feral.
Really? This woman actively likes killing cats. Would you not wonder if that could sway her decisions towards euthansia when other vets might have chosen otherwise? I would, and it would be a quite reasonable fear.
And I don’t know if public funding is to be relied on when cutbacks are being made all the time. Cut back library funding (or whatever) in order to kill more cats. I wouldn’t like to be the politican known for making that decision.
No, I’m afraid I cannot agree that she’s some sort of a killing robot that would switch targeting systems the moment my cat left the hospital door.
I say that her method of killing this cat was humane. And i don’t agree that a veterinarian is held to higher standards in this instance, either: an adult that’s generally of sound mind, vet or not, doesn’t commit a “cruel” act by killing a feral cat with an arrow to the head.
How does that transform her act into cruelty? Be specific.
Perhaps you have access to a better picture than I’ve seen. The picture I’ve seen is too blurry to make a judgement about the cat’s “glossiness,” and I have seen well-fed feral cats before.
I would not, and in my opinion that fear would be unreasonable on your part, since she hasn’t shown animus to cats in general. There’s absolutely no evidence, apart from your imagination, to support the claim that she likes killing cats, period. She likes killing feral cats.
That sentiment clearly and unambiguously limits her desire for killing felines to feral cats.
AFAIK, the tabby markings of a cat are not comparable to human fingerprints (a cat’s noseprint is actually unique to the individual). However, markings are unique enough to make it highly unlikely it is not the missing cat. Compare the markings in this video of the missing cat, and the various photos in this search. Besides the tabby markings, note the shape of the white bib and white splash on the rear left leg. Between that and the proximity and timing of the incident, would you be able to persuade a court it is the missing cat?
Another point I haven’t seen you address: It is illegal to kill a cat with a bow in that jurisdiction, whether feral, stray, or pet. Is that a factor in your opinion, or are you advocating breaking the law in this instance?
Bricker, you seem to be making two different arguments as suits your purpose. A bow-and-arrow is not guaranteed to be humane. This time, maybe it was; but she wouldn’t have to miss by much to cause the animal a great deal of suffering. You’re favoring the specifics of this case rather than the harm such things may cause in general.
But when it comes to ferals, you do the opposite. You say the vet only wants to kill ferals, and maybe she does, but there seems to be pretty good evidence that this was not a feral cat. In this case, she killed somebody’s pet.
So, what should guide our opinion of this veterinarian? Do we judge her on the specifics, humanely killing someone’s pet, or should we be more concerned with the general case, killing ferals in a way that seems likely to cause them to suffer?
Because, really, neither one of those sits well with me.
In a civil case, where preponderance of the evidence was the requisite level of proof? Probably. In a criminal case, which requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
No, I am absolutely not advocating breaking the law. But I was unaware that the law forbid using a bow in this instance.
Just out of curiosity, if you had a beloved cat who was terminally ill and required euthanasia, and the vet suggested killing it with a bow, would you okay with that method of dispatch? I mean, if an arrow to the head is perfectly humane, you should be okay with that, right? And it’s clearly something you want,this particular cat’s death. So why not a nice humane arrow. And if she fist bumps you after a clean kill, well, it doesn’t matter. Her glee is irrelevant.
And earlier a collar was mentioned as a possible marker of being someone’s pet- cat collars are often breakaway collars, for the same reason many people do not like to collar cats. Cats often try to get through small spaces and a regular collar can seriously hurt them.
What sort of proof would you accept at this stage? It’s not like the cat is going to see its owner, run across the room, and jump into her arms.
Specific results are all that matter; is that a principle you plan to carry over to other threads? Is doing something potentially reckless okay as long as the consequences in a specific case aren’t too bad?
