  |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
Posted by Rosemary Drisdelle Nov 13, 2007 |
The Galveston County Daily News reports that the trial of Jim Stephens is set to begin. Reports of Stephen’s arrest surfaced a year ago after he allegedly shot a cat that was stalking birds at San Luis Pass.
According to the report, the case hinges on whether the cat was a pet or a feral: it seems there’s no problem with cruelty to feral cats, but if the cat was a pet (bridge workers were feeding it), then Stephens faces a possible 2 year jail term and a hefty fine.
I realize we have to work with the law as it’s written, but I can’t help feeling that something is missing here: I would have thought we’d be asking “is it okay to shoot cats in a populated area?,” “how much of a threat was the cat to federally protected birds?,” and “is it okay to shoot cats at all?” Whether the cat was a pet seems irrelevant.
Let’s be clear – I don’t condone the use the firearms in populated areas, and I don’t think picking off individual feral cats will solve the “feral cat problem.” I understand why Stephens did it—if he did it—and sympathize with him, but I can’t agree that the ends justified the means.
Any attempt to eradicate feral cats now is a case of closing the barn door after the horses (or cats) have left. It can only be accomplished (and I doubt that it ever will be) through years of effort, huge expense, and a consensus on the problem that we don't currently enjoy. I wish this unfortunate event had ignited more constructive debate and less character assassination and nit picking.
Read the newspaper article: "Bird Watcher's Cat-shooting Trial to Begin."
What's your opinion? Start a discussion.