Sarcastic captcha: "tackling pollution".

I think that the cat hasn't done wrong, but that that isn't enough to save it.

Felines don't have the right to life. We criminalize torturing animals because it's a good marker of a f**ked up human being whom we want off the streets.

We're allowed to swat flies. We're also allowed to drown kittens. Even if they're cute.

Hey Al, Juicy topic today! I'm going to remove my hatred of cats from the equation in my response and stick to the ethics of pets and human treatment of animals in our society.

I would characterize the situation this way: the cat in this case is a nuisance animal and whatever it was doing to the guys enjoyment of his property is similar to a coyote killing a farmer's sheep. The farmer has a right to kill the rogue animal. I remember when I was young I used to hear about dogs that would run away, join packs and kill the odd farm animal. Communities would be on the look out for these rogue mutts and breathe a sigh of relief when they were caught and killed. Its a bit of a grey area if the animal doing the killing is actually a pet i.e. a loved member of a family. In that case, I think it would be appropriate to warn the family this way: "You're g.d. cat is coming onto my property and wreaking havoc on the birds and the endangered/protected piping plovers. Please stop it from doing this. If you can't I will shoot at it/and or kill it." A feral cat would require no such warning.

As for the manner of the death, I understand gun shots are reasonably humane and quick. I'm sure we've all seen the lack of efficiency in a mouse trap killing. The important thing in killing any animal is that it not be cruel. Animals don't care about death, but they can experience pain and suffering.

Finally, there is a heirarchy of animals. Some we consider more worthy of humane treatment and protection than others. Cats are fairly high up there. They don't need protection for ecological reasons (like the piping plover does) but they do merit some kindness that flies or mosquitoes don't based on their pet status and/or capacity to feel pain and suffering.

I agree with Ben and Hans. If the cat was feral, kill it on the spot. If there were reasonable grounds to suspect the cat was another person's property - principally if it had tags - one or two attempts could have been made to ascertain whose property it was. But if the cat continued to be a nuisance, do away with it.

I dunno about the hierarchy, Hans - when the genetics go too wonky, farmers clean out barn cats in sprees that look like the ending of <i>The Matrix</i>. Cats can be among the most disposable of animals in some contexts.

It was a wild cat, feeding on "endangered piping plovers". Kill it. If they guy had poisoned it, nobody would have noticed.

I seem to remember hearing about a program in Britain where professionals investigated what was killing the songbirds in one neighbourhood. They traced it back to one housecat that was killing three or four rare birds a day. (I think the cat had a very cute and girly name like Bluebell, or something.)

They're wonderful natural hunters.

I can see why the bird-lovers would pack heat. (I'm still a cat person.)

feral cat = invasive species.

HOWEVER.. it was not a justified cat killing because he was not a person licensed to hunt said animal, it did not threaten his livestock hterefore it cannot be deemed a nuisance animal, he was discharging a firearm in a residential area (regardless of whether it was his own property) as well as not only near a highway or roadway but AT a structure that is part of said highway/road.. all in all, regardless of the fact that the animal was said to be killing an endangered species, this person was not right to in a vigilante style, kill it. He should have called in the feds or state persons to do so. He is guilty of numerous offences I am quite sure.

All that being said I like cats and don't particularly like birds and I think birding people like dog people are just OCD weirdos.

I'm not at all wild about a guy firing a .22 at a bridge.

Cats, even feral cats, if they are to be killed are owed a painless death. Did Mr .22 take any measures to ensure that? Did he go and find the cat after he shot it off the bridge?

I have a dog and a cat. Both are black, both are female, both are friends - I would be mightily pissed if either were shot.

Wow, so being a 'nuisance' justifies lots of things aroudn here, eh? Trumps property rights and everything(based on old discussions). I think you're all wrong.

Guy went vigilante. Wasn't his place to do this. He broke the law and should be penalized for it. Gun shots are relatively quick? Where'd you hear that? Depends on where it's shot don't it? A gut shot leaves it struggling and in mucho pain, rather cruel. Anyone who's hunted dear knows this.

My take is he's just another 'history will absolve me' self-righteous prick. He killed a cat that brought people pleasure---that's about as close a definition of a pet that I can come up with at the moment. Face it, cats are hunters of little critters, feral or not. That's what they are, hunters and eaters of little birds and mice. If that's a bad thing then why not get rid of them all since they're 'an invasive species'? I mean, people watching some endangered species of bird is so important any old asshole can walk up and shoot a cat, why not all of them since they're all threats to the endangered birds, eh?

Vigilante justice is sheerly wrong, whether it be killing a man or kililng a cat. Wrong is wrong. There's difference of degree, but it's still simply wrong.

I am in favour of vigilantism.

I say you don't own the cat unless you take it home.

Feeding it under a bridge doesn't count.

I agree with ry that there are other issues about the use of the firearm. But what if the cat was strangled or thrown in the water in a bag of stones. Is a cat actually higher up the hierarchy of protected species such that a crime is involved in each killing? My point more goes to this part of the story:<blockquote class="smalltext">Mr. Stevenson was indicted under a state law that prohibited killing a cat "belonging to another." Prompted by this case, the law was changed on Sept. 1 to include all cats, regardless of ownership.</blockquote>Having killed rats, including with a hockey stick, and paying for putting a needle in a cat I just do not see the difference.

No difference. An unowned/feral/wild cat is a vermin. I suppose technically you should call the animal control/scpa/humane society to have the animal removed and/or disposed of humanely. But, I don't have a problem with dealing with the animal humanely yourself. I believe it was Carl Perkins who first sang "Don't Be Cruel".

There are a lot of cats that go missing out where I live recently, and these is this nasty little sheepdog that i keep seeing loose on my property. It barks at me when I run (it is tied up at night) and barks at my kids when they play in our yard from the edge of its yard. I am guessing this little thing could possibly be the reason that the cats go missing in my area. Technically, if I owned livestock and it wandered onto my property (which it does at times), I could shoot it dead, so say the powers that be as it is then deemed a "nuisance" animal no different than a coyote in the chicken coop or a rat in a milk house. However, as I do not own livestock, I am compelled to call the animal control people to deal with it as much as I would LIKE to shoot it.. Its called following the law of the land that everyone else follows and not acting like you are better or different than those that do.

Just to be clear, in case any dogs are reading, you nastily bark at my kids or otherwise scare or threaten them, I find a big rock and hit you in the head. Your lack of opposible thumbs makes this my imposition of mammalian superiority. I don't care, dog. If you are attached to a human by a cord, that human gets a warning. If you are tied up, I will just laugh and point at you.

Daisy says..."Woof, oh mammalian overlord. I do not want your kids...I want your cookies and your hot dogs and your brisket".

Al, if someone saw you drowning the cat or strangling it somehow, even giving it rat poison laced kitty-chow, you're a criminal. At least down here in the lower 48. The laws apply whether you're out in the boondocks of Tippacanoe county or in downtown Lafayette(which is in Tipp county).

Yes, somehow, in N. America cats got elevated on the hierarchy. They aren't vermin like mice or rats. Hell, you can't even kill racoons that break into your garage down here, not on your own volition and say so(somebody somewhen decided that they aren't pernicious or useless enough to merit offing on sight). I didn't make the rules you know, I just know where the boundaries lay. YOu can't kill something that most people think of as a furry family member, whether it is or not, out of hand regardless of the level of nuisance it is. That's for the (best Cartman voice) Authoritay to deal with(or those agents delegated by Authoritay(also in Cartman voice)). You take that power into your own hands and, well, don't whine when the system comes down on you like a ton of bricks for being a self-righteous prick.

Now, I do think the ordinance in question is a little bit coo-coo. So what. Under any rule the guy who did it is still a prick doing things he shouldn't have, which includes un-humanely killing a cat for whatever 'good reasons' he had. His 'cause' superseded all else. What bullshit that is.

SOrry, species go extinct. Things people love dearly simply go away(like landmarks, pets, species, or McDonald's french fries before they took the beef tallow out). Get over it. I know you don't want the Lockean diatribes again, but, you know, the ability to do something like this is something we give up so people can't arbitrarily do it to us too.

And, Al, if you throw a rock at my dog for scaring your kids expect it right back at you and twice as hard. I'm not one of those that thinks a pet is actually the equivalent of a child or family member or anything(they aren't), but some perspective please. If it's charging the kid all teeth and growls then you're within rights to beat it with the smae hockeystick you used on rats(or another one if that one no longer exists) until it's dead. BUt simply barking and scaring your kids? Give me a break. You can't rightly expect the dog to be something other than what it is. It's easier to explain to kidlets that they should respect said barking dog, and leave it alone while giving it a wide bearth, but not fear it. And that goes double if it's behind a fence. (Having said that, anyone who leaves their dog in the front yard is a jerk. Dogs belong in the backyard with either high chain link fences that extend into the dirt so Rover can't tunnel or jump or stout wooden fences he can't see thru. It's the whole being a good neighbor thing. If you're actually playing with Rover, fine, he can be in the front, but when you're not with him he belongs in the backyard.)

I get being mad, but, dude, get a grip. DOgs can be scary, dogs naturally bark at strange people or even people they actually know well, so your attitude is really rather, well, wrong. Actual threat to child, kill away mon ami. BUt barking that scares the kidlets? You throw that rock you'll be lucky if I'm not aiming at your head in return. No fooling. I've hit golf balls with baseball bats back at golfers who've launched errant shots into my backyard as a kid and young adult, shots that killed pets injured my mother and broken property. I'll do it because I have done it. I don't put up with such nonsense. Throwing that rock is really, really uncalled for bro'. Don't become a nuisance yourself. If it's a real threat, fine, put the puppy down as hard as you want. BUt anything less than a real threat? get real. (And yes, I know you were 90% kidding, it just needed to be said though.)

Hans, I suspect you've never owned an outdoor cat. Walking thru the old 'hood you wouldn't know that my Mom's cat Rufus actually had an owner. But she does have an owner. License and shots and everything. Cat just refuses to stay inside all the time. Likes to go outside, eat grass, hunt lizards, laze about, go wandering around, you know, cat like things up to and including eating small birds or being chased by neighbors dogs.

Your definition is rather anti-cat and unrealistic, sirrah.

Having husky fang marks on my face, I am comfortable with my opinions of ill-cared for dogs. No well-raised and properly handled dog should scare anyone. I don't mean woof woof. I meant nastily when I wrote it.

I've never owned an outdoor cat
I never hope to own one
Outdoor indoor either way
I'll kill before I clone one.

(Just kidding, about the killing....)

My anti-cat bias, there. I don't think all cats are vermin, just the feral ownerless ones and in my world you would need to establish ownerlessness fairly strongly before taking any measures.

Consider the simple explanation: he's a redneck cracker with a cruel streak who was looking for something to shoot and he doesn't give a fig about birds.

Simpler still: cats hate nature.

Hey, doesn't Hans get extra points for writing verse? Wasn;t that in the GX40 Glee Club by laws or something? Extra points for poems and such?

I'm thinking you didn't read all the way Gary. Guy's a professional bird watcher. His bed and breakfast caters to bird watchers. I'd say if you wanted a a simple/self-centered explanation he did it because kitty was hurting his business. And, geez, aren't we stereotyping people from Texas(or the backwoods) now?

I hate to disagree Al, but a well kept and well trained dog should scare certain people. A perfect dog wouldn't bark at kids as they walked next to a fence, but would growl and bark when they stuck their hands thru said fence. Some dogs actually seem to have a sense about people. They bark at people who are shady(although most dogs just bark at everyone). I've had a few of both(though I'm petless now. I can't imagine keeping a dog in an apt. Seems unfair to the dog if you ask me.). But that perfect dog doesn't exist. He'll bark when you come close to the boundaries. So walk to the outside of the sidewalk and chances are he wont bark.

Dogs, while better than cats to be sure, aren't just a toy. They serve a purpose---to keep people off my damn property---and fear generation is part and parcel to that. Sorry.

A well placed pebble keeps them quiet, too. Fear generation is called "assault" in tort law - hitting is battery. Placing fear in others is against the common law and the Queen's peace.

..and for the record, I don't hate dogs, I just don't trust them. I have been bit many times as a youth by annoying people's animals that they didn't think they had to keep contained (thought to Ry this means I must have been shady even as a kid). I cannot stand the incessant barking that many dog owners just seem to think we should accept (not unlike how many smokers think it is okay to smoke in our presence and we should just accept it). I am with Alan. Dog bark-yell at owner, dog snarl - throw a rock, dog try to bite me when I run at night - the hand made wooden cudgel I carry for just such an instance will be bonking someone.

And regardless of buddy's business, the birds are/were not his property and if a cat running wild decides to eat a few, it is up to the feds to decide if it needs dealing with, not him. Its no different than someone deciding to sink a few jetskis that are zooming past his beach-side bed and breakfast. Might be a bad thing, but not the right way to deal with it.

Well, I make no truces with Royalty. Period. I don't live in common law invirons(or at least, i don't think the US is governed by such. draws from the traditions of Blackstone, but not bound by such).

you've got to be kidding me here, Al. So if I jump out from behind a corner and yell boo I've commited assault? There's variations in what fear generation is and the def'n of what fear generation in law may or may not coincide with the vernacular. Semantics is a poor man's arguing tactic my friend. Boo.

Dog barks. It really scares you? Give me a break. It makes you anxious maybe, but real fear? The same fear as when a guy steps out of the shadows with a bat or says he's going to kill you and rape the wife? Come on. Aren't you being a little liberal with the term here, mon ami? Isn't there more than just barking that has to be present for it to pass some threshold from (vernacular)nuisance into the realm you're talking about of legal assualt?

Mr. Liddle I never called you shady. And if you looked at the parenthetical you'd know exactly that I have both much experience with the animal behavio(u)r in question and that I don't use a syllogism to imply that anyone a dog barks at must be shady. boo. Don't try to get revenge on what some animal did by taking cheap shots at me. Don't you know it's the second foul that the linesman notices and calls?

Right now I'm about ready to kill three of my neighbors myself. All three have nice new puppies that they abandone in their apartments for 3/4 of the day or more. The little things bay something terrible. Try sleeping with a chow puppy(about the size of a small lab and it's still a puppy) barking because it's lonely. I've got beefs with owners aplenty. But don't confuse the problem of the idiot owner with the dog. A dog is what it is. Dogs bark. Dogs do stupid things when they get out. If the owner's an asshole let them know just how much of an asshole they are, but don't take it out on the animal. It's not sentient. Your small act of negative reinforcment isn't going to stop the animal, or condition it to not do that again. It's just going to piss it off unless you go agrro at which point killing the animal is likely, and, well, I hope you enjoy prison 'cause that's exactly where you belong because you've crossed the line from innocent bystander into asshole criminal. If the problem's the owner take it up with the owner. Hit *them* with the cudgle and you'll likely have faster results(half kidding).

Civil assault under US law summarized.

How do you know the dog is barking at you?

That is not a strong question but I would point out that animals have two eyes so if I am equidistant from each one I assume they are looking at me.

Looking at the wiki on this I think you're all wet, Al.
First, there's the whole intent thing. Nowhere in there does it say simply 'scaring off' constitutes assault. There's a lot about intent. Most dogs that I've owned their intent is simply to keep you out of their yard or personal space. No maiming, no causing of impairment, none of that.

But that's me reading this cold. I don't speak law. It seems to me that there is a bar the act must jump before you can call it assualt based on that, and you're choosing to hurl rocks well short of it. But, like I said, that's me reading it cold. More context and lawyerese and I might be persuaded I'm utterly wrong. But right now your positions don't look so good, imo, homey. The dog doesn't intentionally or voluntarily do something like bark. The things were bred to do that. Assualt from the owner, maybe, but not the dog.

Again, take it up with the owner. Throw rocks at them, not the dog. (And don't tell JoA about this. That man goes ballistic about people being mean to animals. He'd stomp on us good.)

Yes, anyone who uses an animal as a tool of their insecurity is the mean one but dealing with the untrained beasts are everyone's responsibility.

gee, Al, I've actually gotten death threats from eco-wackos and animal rights jackasses so wanting a dog to keep people off my property is just, well, an insecurity issue(me thinking my weenie isn't big enough or something). If I'd only known earlier. Why oh why do I insist on being John Wayne. Why didn't my father love me more? (Yes, calling it an insecurity issue is that ridiculous).

Bollucks. Even if I hadn't gone thru all of that I'd still want a dog. I don't care if little Bob threw his ball into my yard. It's my yard. He has to ask to come in, and with the manners of many kids these days, one does have to have something to keep them honest(hence, Cujo). Nor can I be there 24/7. Enter Cujo, who is a lot cheaper, and more fun for me when he's not performing his duties, than ADT alarm company. Hate to break it to you, but property crime is waaaay more likely to happen then an act of terrorism. Cujo is really useful against property crime, ain't he?

And what about cats pooing in neighbors yards? MMMM? It's not like cats are perfect either.

At teh end of the day a dog meerly barking is simple annoyance. boo hoo, here's $0.50, call someone who cares that the mean ol' dog barked at you. If he bares teeth and charges, fine, you've got something to complain about. The stance you've taken here, Alan, sounds like you feel justified in throwin rocks at clowns if they scare your kids too, or Mickey Mouse. What's next, suing Mother Nature for scaring your kids with thunder? Really, you and Mr. Liddle seem a bit off on this.

Again - my face, husky fang marks, don't care.

It's apparently hit the Times.