49 Comments Add your own

• 1. Marissa  |  November 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

  I think that Stevenson’s actions were wrong. Many of the world’s species are endangered because of human actions. The Piping Plover is at risk because of human actions, and human encroachment on it’s habitat. I also think it was extremely cruel to kill an animal in that manner - by shooting it with hollow-tipped bullets in it’s abdomen. Additionally, the cat was just acting on it’s primal urges. Are we going to start shooting all animals that act on their instincts when those instinctual actions upset humans? I recently saw a red-tailed hawk grab a bunny out of a field, undoubtedly for dinner. Would that hawk deserve to die? Where can you draw the line?

• 2. Peter Bray  |  November 14th, 2007 at 1:29 pm

  Well, hawks and rabbits are both native, and neither are endangered (unless it was a Columbia pygmy rabbit!) Cats are introduced and often feral.

• 3. Doug  |  November 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

  Pet cats have killed countless number of birds everyday, needlessly. These birds are sentient beings too. Cat owners who do not keep their cats indoors (OR abandon them) are committing cruelty to birds! They are responsible to these unnecessary deaths and sufferings.

  Few people have sympathy for the death of Hitler because he was responsible for so many unnecessary deaths and sufferings. I have little sympathy for cats or their owners who are responsible for similar deeds as well.

  I love cats, but I don’t have a pet cat because I don’t want the possible (often inevitable) cruel deaths of birds.

  Love your cats, but be responsible. Keep them indoors! And prevent them from becoming feral.

• 4. Ray Newman  |  November 14th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  Cat lovers’ passioned arguments, while easy to sympathize with, are more emotional than rational. One ought not to attack Mr. Stevenson on the grounds that the cat “suffered while it died” — consider that all animals killed for food suffer as they die. Cases such as Mr. Stevenson’s must be carefully considered on an individual basis lest overzealous parties killing indiscriminately fail to seek more compassionate methods; however, the needs of wild species, and most especially threatened and endangered ones, have to win out over domestic species like cats and dogs.

• 5. Bubba  |  November 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  Frankly I hope stevenson suffers when he dies like that cat that he shot. Then he might understand what gut-shooting an animal does. Perhaps there should be open season on the piping plover after all they might crap on someone’s car!

• 6. European Knight Grand Protector of God's Birds  |  November 14th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

  All who are planning to kill feral cats to protect birds, please shoot them in the head. A .22-250 caliber is perfect for this. Use soft nose hollow point bullets. I love cats, I own a cat, but feral cats at my country home wiped out flocks of birds. Thank goodness a hard spell of minus twenty five degrees below zero Celsius that lasted a week or so, killed off most of them, and now wonderful wonderful, a Golden Eagle has been patrolling around our area, and cats are disappearing.
  There was a study done in the UK on the mortality of birds due to domestic cats. The the astonishment of nearly everyone, the count was in the millions per year. Domestic cats serve no useful ecological purpose; they have evolved to be companions to people. Period. I once lived near a large open meadow. Every year, a flock of sandpipers nested there and raised their brood. Sandpipers are ground nesting birds. Then some row houses were built, people and cats moved in, and in two years the sandpiper flock was wiped out. I am getting a high velocity German made air rifle. I am going to kill every stray cat I come across. Fortunately, we do not have any laws like the stupid one recently passed in Texas. What a joke. The American state that executes most under-aged youths, several insane people and the occasional innocent person, has passed a law to protect the lives of feral cats.

• 7. Nunnaya Bidnis  |  November 14th, 2007 at 5:55 pm

  Doug, have you seen this blog? ‘Nuff said.

• 8. Olivia  |  November 14th, 2007 at 6:18 pm

  James M. Stevenson’s motives had nothing to do with the protection of wildlife. His motives hinged on money. As the owner of a “bed and breakfast that houses 500,000 birdwatchers per year,” he was only looking out for his own business interests. Killing one cat because it was killing birds is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg–it is simply not a logical solution. It is not up to Mr. Stevenson to decide what things deserve life and what things do not. For his blatantly arrogant act, grounded mostly in greed, he should be found guilty.

• 9. Brandon  |  November 14th, 2007 at 7:20 pm

  If the cat is found to not be feral and is ruled as being “owned” by someone, then wouldn’t the owner be responsible for any “taking” by the cat of a bird covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Endangered Species Act?

• 10. Orual  |  November 14th, 2007 at 9:20 pm

  Domesticated cats are a pleasant source of companionship. Feral cats, on the other hand - whose numbers are allowed to grow beyond environmentally supportable levels by kind-hearted people who feed them - are a destructive nuisance.

  In this situation, dangered animals take priority, no questions asked. It is a pity that the cat in question should be the free-range “pet” of another, a pity that Stevenson did not shoot so well as to kill it cleanly; but even given these lamentable details - is this really a criminal issue?

  The American legal system panders to the squeaking of too many interest groups and allows too many unrepresented issues to slip through the cracks. A farce.

  I just returned from tutoring a girl whose father was killed violently in the Congo. Given the amount of cruelty done by humans to humans in this world, I haven’t got any patience for those who would exert so much time and money on the prosecution of a cat-killing birdwatcher.

  Let him go. Change the law. We have bigger problems than staunching the bleeding hearts of those who cry over a lame
  puppy and turn a blind eye to a starving child. Let compassion find a better focus.

  Politically correct, I’m not in the mood to be. Sorry.

• 11. Carol Ragan  |  November 15th, 2007 at 7:09 am

  Olivia, unless you are blessed with telepathy, you cannot possibly know what is in Mr. Stevenson’s head or heart.

  His only mistake was getting caught. Whoever was feeding this cat was not acting responsibly. Cats are killers of other small creatures. Anything that hops, flies, slithers or scurries is not safe. There are way too many outdoor cats. The capture, neuter and release program is ridiculous. A cat’s life span can be over 15 years. In 15 years, there may be no Piping Plovers left.

• 12. Caleb  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:16 am

  Bottom line is this: the preservation of all of the world’s current living species is the most important issue at hand. The Piping Plover is considered globally Vulnerable by the IUCN, and is in clear threat of extinction over the long-term. Arguably, this does not invalidate certain concerns over animal cruelty, but in this case, the person facing $10,000 and 2 years in prison should be **the person releasing and/or feeding the cat**, not Jim Stevenson. Also, why aren’t hunters being targeted for the same charge of cruelty by Stevenson’s prosecutors and critics?

  Why does our society not understand that it is the *prevention of extinction* which is paramount?

• 13. Cheri Carr  |  November 15th, 2007 at 10:07 am

  If the cat “belonged” to the toll booth worker who was feeding it, it was in violation of being allowed to run at large, and the “owner” should be subject to fines. A couple of points: Feral cats are decimating wild bird populations. The AVMA deems death by gunshot as humane. Granted, calling animal control might have been a better option than shooting the cat.

• 14. Patrick Migas  |  November 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am

  Sadly for the cat, this was a bird sanctuary, not a cat refuge. If the toll booth operator cared so much for “mama kitty”, then they should have taken it home where it could do less harm. I live in the Northwest and I have buried many cats for landowners I worked for that shot them for harassing the wildlife. I felt a little sad doing this, but prefer it to the countless number of songbirds that are killed by cats that are allowed to roam freely on neighbors property that may consider there land a wildlife refuge of there own. Case in point, I have a friend in Montana, outside Helena, who has managed her land for its wild inhabitants. She has created a beautiful, if somewhat small, wetland, has planted wild species of plants and created some dense cover. As well she has a bird feeder outside her kitchen window. Enter the new neighbors from Los Angeles. They show up, buy two Siamese Cats, name one of them Montana, and allow them to run unchecked, with claws, through a setting of homeowners who cherish there wild things. Naturally this cat shows up at her bird feeder and starts killing songbirds. She speaks with the cat owners and is told that they want there cat to “run free.” This cat has no more right to life than it does to take it. If I see it, I will kill it. They have been warned and should know better. I think that a toll booth operator on an island that is a bird sanctuary should have known better as well. The shooter, in this case, in my opinion as a wildlife biologist, did the right thing. He is guilty of no crime. He did not mean to torture this animal, only to stop it. Perhaps from here on out there will be a presence of cat lovers on the island who can whisk away there precious predators before someone like myself does the right thing.

• 15. Ryan Goldschlager  |  November 15th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

  Actually cats have as much right to not be left dying on street as Mr. Stevenson. He is much more dangerous to endangered species than a bird (as a consumer of gas, electricity, etc.). I would have respect for him if he shot himself, but not a helpless animal. Sociopath.

• 16. Silent Wolf  |  November 15th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

  The slaughter of migratory birds by domestic and feral cats is enough to have a knock on effect ecologically, because songbirds, eating massive quantities of insects, help to keep the continental biomass in dynamic equilibrium. I own cats, but most cat lovers in America are irresponsible and too many are totally irrational. In the community where I live, I am doing my bit to solve the problem. I walk around in the evenings and at night, and drop squares of bakers chocolate on the ground. When I travel to visit family, I do the same thing. Cats find bakers chocolate irresistable, and in their roaming around, they find this bate. But chocolate is poison to cats, and it kills them. They die quickly and painlessly. I suggest all bird lovers start doing what I have been doing for seven months. Ordinary Milk chocolate bars is fine for this purpose, but bakers chocolate is 10 times more potent. All supermarkets sell it. Domestic cats are not native to North America, they are an introduced specie, brought here by man. Just as rats and mice were. Let us all do our bit to restore the balance. And keep this activity an absolutely total secret. Remember, if two people know something, it is not a secret. Happy hunting. SPREAD THE WORD.

• 17. para  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:24 pm

  He is a monster.

• 18. para  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:26 pm

  Birder = silent wolf = posions cats = monster

• 19. Ryan Goldschlager  |  November 16th, 2007 at 11:05 am

  Silent Wolf -

  What is your address? I won\’t tell the cops, i\’ll cut your evil heart out myself. No wonder people hate birders - they are sociopaths.

  You know who else isn\’t native to North America? Humans. Shit head.

• 20. Justice  |  November 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

  Great idea, Silent Wolf, I will give it a try!

  Cats kill 100’s of millions to a billion birds in North America a year (American Bird Conservancy). Disgusting. Keep your cats INDOORS, they are not native to North America, they are NOT a natural part of the environment and do NOT belong outside roaming free. Cats are responsible for numerous bird extinctions around the globe, particularly when introduced to islands, New Zealand for example has multiple flightless/fearless of predator birds that are being driven into oblivion by cats.

  Jim Stevenson tried to shoot a cat in the spine to kill it instantly. His objective was not to make it suffer, otherwise he would have shot it in the stomach resulting in excruciating pain for hours to days before it died. His shot severed its spine, it just didn’t die right away. No one is pefect.

• 21. Victoria  |  November 19th, 2007 at 9:12 am

  Although i agree with the fact that there needs to be something done about the feral cat population, shooting them is not the answer. Its societys fault there are free roaming cats and we as a society need to come together to do something about it within the realms of the law. What he did was wrong weither the reasons be vertuous or not, he deserves his punishment and needs to stand up and take it like a man. Every animal deserves equal treatment, kill a cat to save a bird…but dont try to help save the cats. Lets not be foolish here, its our fault the cats are there so lets fix our mistake shall we…and not by killing them. Humans have killed off enough species dont you think? We have no one to blame but ourselves, not the cats.

• 22. Victoria  |  November 19th, 2007 at 9:38 am

  I think that i forgot to mention human development is number 1 on the list of leading causes of declining bird populations…so if we reason with Mr. Stevenson, we need to shoot eachother, and stop having children because we kill more than any animal EVER could.

• 23. Ryan Goldschlager  |  November 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am

  Justice -

  The evil birder did shoot the cat in the stomach, according to the police report by Officer John P. Bertolino Sr. Nice attempt to spread lies. And how many endangered birds did this particular cat kill? Any evidence the number is greater than zero? Stevenson is a sociopath who is trying to deal with his inability to have any effect in the world by killing cats (he has admitted that he has shot many). Anyone who supports his actions is equally depraved; just smart enough to shoot a helpless animal in broad daylight.

• 24. Beatrice Ware  |  November 19th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

  How many of you sat through the trial, and how many of you know this man’s history? Perhaps this man would like to explain why he was arrested by Texas Parks and Wildlife before. This whole story, and this whole trial revolved around his own un-witnessed story. Has anyone considered that the first part of the story might be made up to try to explain his actions? The Grand Jury heard enough to indict him. 2/3 of the jury thought he was guilty. He was not proven innocent. He had a hung jury. Hung up apparently on whether or not he could see a food dish that would tell him that the cat was owned. This has turned into a cat vs bird story. Perhaps it is not. If there is anything good to come out of this, it may raise the awareness of dumped cats, and kept cats that are allowed outside. How wonderful it would be if people would be responsible pet owners.

• 25. Justice  |  November 20th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

  Ryan -

  Various sources have reported that the bullet severed the cat’s spine. By all means, go check for yourself. It may have entered via the abdomen, but the bullet found its mark.

  For those of you who haven’t a clue what a Piping Plover is, just click/copy ‘n paste:

  http://www.gulfofmaine.org/times/winter2005/plover2.jpg

  And on Beatrice’s last commments, to me this has turned into a story of personal emotions vs. a man’s life. What he did was NOT illegal. He did not commit animal cruelty. That 2/3 of the jury still wanted to convict onr personal feelings instead of the law is insane.

• 26. Jill Elizabeth  |  November 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am

  This was an act of animal abuse - period. His motive - whatever it may have been - is not of importance. Mr. Stevenson murdered this innocent creature without regard for the cat or the laws which prohibit the killing of domestic animals. Let’s see how much he loves being a jail bird.

  For those who are up in arms over the fact that cats hunt birds - Well - NEWSFLASH: That is nature - it is all part of the food chain - get used to it.

  “European Knight” …Who crowned you the Grand Poo-bah of “God’s Birds”? It’s almost as absurd as your claim that cats have no useful ecological purpose. Over the centuries, the feline has proven itself to be far more than a household pet and has been instrumental in the health of nations. Just ask France.

  “Silent Wolf” - I find it frightening and disturbing that you are a cat owner. Something clearly went awry in your upbringing. It seems evident that you lead a sad, insignificant life in which poisoning neighborhood cats somehow gives you a sense of power. Get some help.

  And after reading the following gems - courtesy of Patrick Migas - “This cat has no more right to life than it does to take it.” along with his opinion that James M. Stevenson is a “wildlife biologist” The first thought that comes to mind is “Bird-Brained”.

  “What greater gift than the love of a cat?” - Charles Dickens.

  “The purity of a person’s heart can be quickly measured by how they regard cats.” - Anonymous

• 27. Patrick  |  November 21st, 2007 at 5:42 am

  I am not a bird or a domestic cat enthusiast. I am most concerned with protecting endangered species.

  I could buy into his defense, IF his actions if these was an isolated occurrence (He is out bird watching and for some unknown reason, he \’just happens to have a .22 rifle along\’. He spots a feral cat about to pounce an protected animal and kills the offender), but to systematically go about shooting these cats is wrong. Trapping and turning them over to the H.S. would have been a much better thing to do. Or perhaps, spreading the word and getting help from the appropriate agencies. However, he chose to take the law into his own hands and he should now pay the price for that.

  One last thing to keep in mind: In Alaska, we were shooting native wolves from helicopters to try and increase the population of moose for the hunters. The only reason that was stopped was it wasn’t cost effective.

• 28. VM  |  November 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm

  Why is it that many cat owners seem to feel that their pets have a right to everyone’s property and the great-outdoors in general? Cats are not only an introduced species, but an introduced and invasive PREDATORY species. One cat can easily kill over 1000 animals a year (and many/most are not eaten but killed in play). Quite apart from the harm inflicted on those animals, and the reduction of biodiversity, it also reduces the food available for natural predators like hawks, owls, coyotes, etc. I work in a wildlife clinic and is is HEARTBREAKING to see the number of animals who have been hurt by cats, many have to be put down. I don’t understand why cat owners who let their cats outdoors feel the right to let this happen, it’s as if they feel that they and their cats are better than anyone and anything else. If I let my hypothetical cat-chasing attack-dog loose to roam the neighborhood I wonder how they would feel.
  Concerning feral cats, that’s a tough one…Ideally they should all be picked up by animal control. They are a sad product of people’s irresponsibility (like other introduced species in the world- e.g., the possums in New Zealand, beavers in Patagonia, etc… these 2 species aren’t even predators and they have destroyed biodiversity). However, if people can legally hunt deer, coyote, squirrels, fox, game birds, and other native animals, it is completely unclear to me why people cannot be allowed to hunt feral cats, which are an invasive and destructive species. I love animals and this sounds harsh, but sometimes one has to put sentimentality aside and think of the bigger environmental picture.

• 29. diverse  |  November 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pm

  picking sides…. I’ll take diversity over death. We need diversity on our planet to survive. please keep you kitties indoors or in an enclosure. Ecological diversity makes the world go ’round.

• 30. Jill Elizabeth  |  November 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 am

  Once again, I am sickened by what I have just read. VM - Why is it so \”heartbreaking\” to see a mouse, rat, lizard or bird which has been injured by a cat? Once agin, they are only acting on instinct. Perhaps you should take it up with Mother Nature. And tell me how it is that you are unable to comprehend why it is illegal to \”hunt\” feral cats? Do you also believe that stray dogs should be shot and killed for sport? What is next - orphans? Afterall, they don\’t belong to anyone!

  I am in complete agreement that cats should be kept strictly indoors - away from the heartless human beings who are out to do them harm.

  \”Beware of those who dislike cats\”

• 31. Ashitaka  |  November 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 pm

  Jim Stevenson is my uncle, believe it or not I really don’t care, so there’s no need to spam me over it.

  FACT: The cat was feral, not owned by anyone under law. Those who have posted that the cats are acting on instinct are indeed correct; it is a cat’s instinct to hunt and kill birds, HUNGRY OR NOT! These cats, which are FAR more plentiful than the ENDANGERED birds they are hunting, were fed and cared for by the toll-worker. Even fed, even not hungry, the cats continue to kill. The toll-worker helped to insure the common cats’ survival while playing a part in the destruction of the endangered birds in the area. This is not a biased statement, this is simply the logical truth. Think about it.

  I’m neither pro-cat nor pro-bird, I simply don’t see why everyone is getting worked up over this. If he had shot a raccoon, would any of you really care? Would the media care? How about a rat? An animal is an animal after all, isn’t it? Isn’t all this just a bit ridiculous? Having known him personally all my life, I can tell you my uncle is not a monster. While I don’t endorse shooting any animals, I wonder how many of you out there eat beef, chicken and so forth and never give a care at the harsh treatment the animals receive at slaughterhouses and the like, yet you’re here getting upset over an owner-less cat being shot?

  To those comparing human life to that of a cat’s, please get a grip here. A cat is an animal, just like a bird, just like a bat, just like a roach. Of course the cats came when the toll-worker called; all animals are smart enough to know and use free sources of food. Please, get a grip people. I ask you again, if he had shot a raccoon, would you all really care at all? What about if he had stepped on a bug?

  Let’s be honest, the issue here isn’t “This man is being killing animals, he’s evil!” the REAL issue is “This man is killing adorable, helpless kitty cats, he’s evil!”

  Let’s wake up people. How many of you know this man? How many of you really know what he thinks, what his motives are? How can you sit at your computer and judge a person as a “monster” because he killed an animal?

• 32. Rich Dale  |  November 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

  I love cats, in fact I have two of them. I am also an avid birder. As a cat lover it kills me to see people let their cats roam free. A vet once told me if you cherish your cat’s life you will keep it indoors. The totally clueless thought processes of folks like Jill Elizabeth and Ryan are simply beyond me. Yeah Mr. Stevenson probably should have attempted to trap the animal in question and turn it over to the Humane Society where it would likely be euthanized, but as a birder who has come across countless feral cats and dogs while birding I can tell you the thought to do what Mr. Stevenson stands accussed of doing has definitely crossed my mind.

• 33. James  |  December 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  I love both cats and birds. This said I can’t condone what Stevenson did. No one appointed him executioner, he should have worked with a trap and neuter group. Realistically if he wanted to do the most good for birds he would fight destruction of nesting areas.

• 34. Peter Bray  |  December 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm

  Trap and neuter is not at all effective.

• 35. Bob Ollerton  |  December 3rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm

  I condone what Jim Stevenson did. The house cat population is dramatically out of control and house cats are subsidized predators. Pet house cats live in safe homes and eat food provided by their owners. Most feral house cats are unlikely to encounter natural predators and have a relatively easy time scavenging food from the voluminous food waste provided by humans. The situation is obviously not the fault of the house cat, but the house cat population needs to be controlled. I would prefer that they not be shot, but it’s better to shoot them than to have the situation worsen - which is exactly what seems to be happening.

• 36. Misty  |  January 14th, 2008 at 10:49 am

  I love all animals big or small wild or non and to say the least, what Mr. Stevenson did was apprehensible. Cats catch small animals on instinct get over it. Would you shoot a dog for killing a bird or rabbit they do the same. It’s nature, animals are programed to do what they have done for eons, kill and eat. It’s crap, I tell you one thing if I would have seen him do it there would have been hell to pay. As to the ferile cats, it is not the fault of the cats it’s human error, so it is wrong to kill them just because they are taking over space because people put them out. Spade and Nuter them and relese them the population will not be able to spread. Killing innocent animals because of intinct and human error is wrong, very wrong.

• 37. robert  |  January 15th, 2008 at 11:45 pm

  Has anyone stopped to consider that perhaps nature has an intelligence of its own, and that feral cats exist for ecologically sound reasons? The development of agriculture created an ecological niche for feral cats and led to the domestication of cats some 4000 years ago. Cats were utilized by ancient civilizations such as the Egyptians to prevent the contamination of grain and the spread of disease, and the cats were feral cats, not house cats. Cats were brought to America around 1750 for the same purposes and once again, they were feral cats, not house cats.

  According to the Centers for Disease Control, rats and mice spread over 35 diseases worldwide, such as Hemorrhagic fever, Lassa fever, Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis, Salmonellosis, and Plague. Since 1993, the Hantavirus has been spreading in the United States, affecting people from the Southwest as well as California, Florida, and New York.

  The CDC’s current health alert on the Hantavirus states that “transmission can occur when dried materials contaminated by rodent excreta are disturbed and inhaled, directly introduced into broken skin or conjuntiva, or possibly, when ingested in contaminated food or water.” The Hantavirus causes Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome and the CDC has stated that “There is no specific treament or cure for hantavirus infection.” [www.cdc,gov/ncidod/diseases/hanta/hps]

  At the same time rodent and mice populations are spreading a fatal disease across the United States, poorly informed people are targeting and killing feral cats, who constitute our primary defense against large populations of rodents carrying fatal diseases. In fact, among the CDC’s key recommendations for preventing the spread of Hantavirus in the US is “Encourage the spread of natural predators.” There is no greater natural predator or rats or mice than a feral cat.

  We would do well to remember the lessons of history in that regard. During the Black Plague, which caused approximately 25 deaths in Europe, people mistakenly targeted and killed cats due to similar ill-informed hysteria, which caused great increases in the number of rats carrying the disease.

  If the Hantavirus spreads to your town, will you be worrying about biodiversity? Will you rely on the likes of Silent Wolf come to your town and pass out Hershey bars to all the rats and mice? Feral cats are the best answer to a very real health problem, and are being actively utilized for exactly that reason in municipalities across the US (see for example Los Angeles Times, 12/29/07, “LAPD Enlists Feral Cats for Rat Patrol).

• 38. Robert  |  January 15th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

  Has anyone stopped to consider that perhaps nature has an intelligence of its own, and that feral cats exist for ecologically sound reasons? The development of agriculture created an ecological niche for feral cats and led to the domestication of cats some 4000 years ago. Cats were utilized by ancient civilizations such as the Egyptians to prevent the contamination of grain and the spread of disease, and the cats were feral cats, not house cats. Cats were brought to America around 1750 for the same purposes and once again, they were feral cats, not house cats.

  According to the Centers for Disease Control, rats and mice spread over 35 diseases worldwide, such as Hemorrhagic fever, Lassa fever, Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis, Salmonellosis, and Plague. Since 1993, the Hantavirus has been spreading in the United States, affecting people from the Southwest as well as California, Florida, and New York.

  The CDC\’s current health alert on the Hantavirus states that \”transmission can occur when dried materials contaminated by rodent excreta are disturbed and inhaled, directly introduced into broken skin or conjuntiva, or possibly, when ingested in contaminated food or water.\” The Hantavirus causes Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome and the CDC has stated that \”There is no specific treament or cure for hantavirus infection.\” [www.cdc,gov/ncidod/diseases/hanta/hps]

  At the same time rodent and mice populations are spreading a fatal disease across the United States, poorly informed people are targeting and killing feral cats, who constitute our primary defense against large populations of rodents carrying fatal diseases. In fact, among the CDC\’s key recommendations for preventing the spread of Hantavirus in the US is \”Encourage the spread of natural predators.\” There is no greater natural predator or rats or mice than a feral cat.

  We would do well to remember the lessons of history in that regard. During the Black Plague, which caused approximately 25 million deaths in Europe, people mistakenly targeted and killed cats due to similar ill-informed hysteria, which caused great increases in the number of rats carrying the disease.

  If the Hantavirus spreads to your town, will you be worrying about biodiversity? Will you rely on the likes of Silent Wolf come to your town and pass out Hershey bars to all the rats and mice? Feral cats are the best answer to a very real health problem, and are being actively utilized for exactly that reason in municipalities across the US (see for example Los Angeles Times, 12/29/07, \”LAPD Enlists Feral Cats for Rat Patrol).

• 39. Sarah  |  March 18th, 2008 at 11:21 am

  Hello, I posted a comment earlier about James Stevenson [possible libel deleted by admin]. Somehow my comment disappeared. This should be an open forum for opinions and comments. [possible libel deleted by admin]

• 40. Peter Bray  |  March 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am

  I don’t see how it is relevant to the subject at hand, and this site won’t be a vehicle for possible libel and tar-and-feathering as you seem to be doing. As well, just because someone was arrested for something, does not mean that they were guilty!

• 41. Eric  |  March 18th, 2008 at 11:47 am

  I am also a former [deleted] and heard about this site. I agree with my classmate that Jim Stevenson’s history as [possible libel removed by admin].

• 42. Eric  |  March 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am

  Also, I am appalled by Peter’s suggestion that, “Just because someone was arrested for something, does not mean that they were guilty!”
  Imagine if he had done the same thing to a bird - sadly, I imagine you would think very differently!

• 43. OJ Simpson  |  March 19th, 2008 at 3:52 am

  For the record, I definitely agree with Peter. Just because someone was arrested for something, does not mean they were guilty.

• 44. Brani Ray  |  March 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am

  I think that Jim Stevenson should be freed. I was attacked by one of those feral cats, and I think they’re really dangerous. From what I can tell, Stevenson was totally in his right and did an honorable act.

• 45. Stacy6  |  March 20th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

  What part of “innocent until proven guilty” is incomprehensible? It’s one of the foundations of our legal system.

• 46. big daddy bass!  |  May 4th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  Sorry, but if you justify feral cats as being positive, you are an idiot. Connect the dots. It is a hang up you must get over. They are invasive, abnormal to the new world. Sorry. I know that hurts a lot of otherwise good people. Keep your cats indoors. They are your responsibility. Not your neighbors.

• 47. Laz  |  May 7th, 2008 at 7:31 am

  While I understand the need to protect endangered bird species, is it not cruel to confine an outdoor cat to the indoors? A human would not enjoy not being able to leave their house for their entire life.

  Furthermore, I think that shooting the cat was not the right direction to take. Shooting a cat will not solve the problem, but instead we should try to spay/neuter these cats (not an immediate solution, but an investment in the future, surely) or outfitting the cats with some sort of bell collar.

  And it isn’t like birds are never problems either. Sparrows and starlings have plagued my bird feeders for years, and often chase away my downy woodpeckers and nuthatches… perhaps we could train cats to only hunt overpopulated, “nuisance” birds? There’s a rather far-fetched thought…

• 48. CarpCoyote  |  May 19th, 2008 at 7:03 am

  There are two relationships in nature..predator and prey..if you wiped out every cat because you think they are responsible for killing all the birds, you should also kill humans, dogs, owls, and hawks. Of course, that would be absurd.
  If you are a real birder and not one who belongs to a club or society, you’ll know that the cat hysteria, like bionativism, is a psychological, not an ecological problem. It is easy and lazy to transfer blame to cats, who are amazing little creatures, are part of the food chain, and keep rodent populations in check. Killing them to “protect” birds is anti-nature and unfortunately, shows typical human ignorance.

  Any observer of nature will see that people are the number one threat to birds and their important habitat. Over 100 million birds die each year by slamming into glass windows in your house or getting hit by cars!

  My neighborhood has cats, dogs, hawks, coyotes and thankfully plenty of songbirds that visit. I look forward each spring to the bright yellow/orange hooded orioles that zip thru the trees and nest in the palms..they are amazing to watch. If more people respected nature, instead of demonizing aspects they don’t understand, we’d all be better off.

• 49. Stephanie  |  June 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

  The argument that killing all cats to stop predatory behaviour on native creatures should then justify the killing of native predators is pure crap.

  The native animals are part of the natural cycle; cats are introduced by people. Like blackberries, and scotch bloom and English ivy, and starlings they are an invasive species that are driving out natives.

  Feeding and promoting feral cat populations should be a crime. They carry diseases like roundworm, heartworm, and hookworm, various forms of FIV and feline leukemia, distemper, and all manner of other sicknesses that cost responsible pet owners thousands of dollars to treat their own pets for.

  If you insist on feeding feral cats, do the responsible thing and have them neutered. For $25 a cat (and trust me, this is a HUGE deal… at a vet it’s much, much more) the Feral Cat coalition will do it for you.

  It’s ignorant and lazy to just let these populations of cats just explode. And it’s ignorant to excuse them away as ‘local wildlife’. Domestic cats are not wildlife… they’re a feral domestic breed.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed