Wisconsin Debating Hunting Season for Cats MADISON, Wis. - Hunter Mark Smith welcomes wild birds on to his property, but if he sees a cat, he thinks the "invasive" animal should be considered fair game. The 48-year-old firefighter from La Crosse has proposed that hunters in Wisconsin make free-roaming domestic cats an "unprotected species" that could be shot at will by anyone with a small-game license. His proposal will be placed before hunters on April 11 at the Wisconsin Conservation Congress spring hearings in each of the state's 72 counties. "I get up in the morning and if there's new snow, there's cat tracks under my bird feeder ... I look at them as an invasive species, plain and simple," Smith said. Smith's proposal has horrified cat lovers, but is seen by others as a way to stop cats from killing wild birds. University of Wisconsin-Madison wildlife ecology professor Stanley Temple, who trapped more than 100 cats and analyzed their stomach contents during a four-year study, has estimated that between 7.8 million and 219 million birds are killed by rural cats in Wisconsin each year. "It's obviously a very controversial proposal," Temple said, but added, "I think there really is a basis for having a debate about it." The Conservation Congress is a five-member elected body whose duty is to advise the Department of Natural Resources and the Legislature on natural resources issues. DNR attorney Tim Andryk said the vote would simply be "an advisory recommendation" to state lawmakers. "We (the DNR) don't have authority to regulate domestic animals. Legislation would have to be passed to accomplish this," Andryk said. "You might also have to amend laws relating to abuse of domestic animals." But Temple said he thinks legislation is not needed. He said the department does have the authority to declare rural cats an unprotected species — because unclaimed cats can be considered nonnative wildlife species like house mice, Norway rats, pigeons and starlings. "If they are not a pet, if somebody doesn't claim ownership, they become a nonnative wildlife species and not entitled to protection by the state," he said. Cat enthusiasts Cheryl Balazs, Ted O'Donnell and Adam Bauknecht are trying to organize opposition to Smith's proposal. O'Donnell, a co-owner of MadCat Pet Supplies, recently set up a Web site, dontshootthecat.com, to inform people about it. O'Donnell said Smith's proposal "is a callous response" to the problem of cats preying on wild birds. "There's more humane solutions," he said. "We as citizens should step up and solve the problem humanely." Sheri Carr, senior humane officer at the Dane County Humane Society, said the group has not yet taken a position on the proposal, but wants cat owners to abide by their local ordinances and not let their animals roam. "I would hate to think that tame, owned cats who happen to slip out would be at risk of being deemed a wild, unprotected species," Carr said. "It's a delicate (ecological) balance out there, but does that mean people should be able to shoot their neighbor's cat? Probably not."
Maybe little off the topic, but two years ago there were some high school kids in my neighborhood shooting cats with high power air rifles. My cat died from the shooting, and my neighbor's cat got shot in the leg. The police never caught those son of b****es, I don't think they really tried. If they ever come back again, there will be hell to pay.
I dare them to take a shot at any of the strays on my street. I have a couple of neighbors with anger management issues who would GLADLY take the opportunity to fire back.
When an animal becomes a pest, it is normally dealt with. I'm a dog lover, and I've heard several stories about packs of dogs needing to be killed because they were a common nuisance. A proper solution would be a "collar law." If an animal is wearing a collar, it can be trapped and contained, but not killed. Without a collar, they're fair game. It sounds harsh, but you have to control the pet population. Dogs and cats would run rampant all over our city, otherwise. It's happened before, and euthanasia is always the result.
You can say that again. At least in Wisconsin they probably wont be killing them and selling them to asian resturants.
The house cat is probably the most succesful vertebrate predator, ever. Besides - Cats eat things that would bother people - like rats and insects and such. And I think there's probably a better solution than simply gunning them down. Especially since cats are going to congregate near their food supply - which means near people - which makes hunting impractical.
We have two cats of our own, and in the mornings, they like to sit in the front window sills. We started having a problem with one of our neighbor's cats coming over and sitting on the other side of the window trying to "play" with our cats. He/she ended up tearing up all of our screens over the course of a few months. I asked my neighbor to either keep their cat from coming over and/or to pay for my screens and they wouldn't. I ended up timing my sprinklers to come on at the same time that their cat would come over. Fixed the problem. Haven't seen the cat in months.
Now, that's a creative solution. If you ever need to avoid the screen problems, just get pet screens. They NEVER freakin' tear.
let's see... vinyl siding is made of vinyl... wooden doors are made of wood... ...pet screens are made of pets. Maybe that's one solution to your overpopulation problem...
It's a kind of screen material (you can get it at any home store - Home Depot, Lowe's, etc.) that is really, REALLY tough. We have a screened enclosure our cats can go into without getting outside and in the two years we've had pet screens on there, they have yet to tear any of them. Now, a couple of times, they've pulled a couple of staples out of the wood and I had to re-staple, but the screen has not torn once. Prior to that, we had the standard screen material and they shredded that stuff. They can literally hang on the pet screens and the stuff will not rip.
that is the perfect way to get rid of animals who you do not want in your garden, Just scare the Sh*t out of them. it works perfectly. I cannot believe that such a proposal would get approved. we will see.
It makes some sense to me. It wouldn't be appropriate in metropolitan areas, but it makes sense in rural areas. Most cats you'd come across would be wild, you won't have a lot of neighbor cats coming around (not like in a city), and you'd probably recognize them anyway. In cities, we collect and euthanize wild cats, but it's not practical in the country, so empowering local residents (with hunting licenses) to take care of the problem makes sense. Of course, mistakes will be made and someone's favorite cat will get gunned down. But, it still sounds like a good idea to me.
This doesn't make sense to me. From my experiences is urban and non-urban settins, it is in the rural, non-urban settings where pets are more likely ot be running free, not vice-versa. The entire idea sounds stupid to me. As with all proposals, I still don't understand how we only end up with 1 solution. People look at a problem, see a solution and say that it has to be it. There should be at least 4 or 5 feasible solutions to a problem like this, with cat-hunting only being one.
I'm not saying they don't run free (you may want them to to control mice). I'm saying the space between houses will mean that your cat won't stray on to as many other people's properties. The distance is too far to walk.
