If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
03-28-2005, 10:12 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
ORIGINAL: Bukmastr
I did not say killing them, or removeing them was the wrong thing to do... I said, proposeing it as a law, is causeing all the antihunters in the state (and across the country) to be rallying against Wisc. hunters. They are planning on filling our April 11th meetings and voteing in there own anti hunting personal into our governing body. We have also been extremly successful in turning a huge number of Non-hunters into Anti-hunters. My point is, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
I did not say killing them, or removeing them was the wrong thing to do... I said, proposeing it as a law, is causeing all the antihunters in the state (and across the country) to be rallying against Wisc. hunters. They are planning on filling our April 11th meetings and voteing in there own anti hunting personal into our governing body. We have also been extremly successful in turning a huge number of Non-hunters into Anti-hunters. My point is, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
03-28-2005, 03:27 PM
#23
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Helenville WI USA
Posts: 900
RE: If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
Brutal Attitude,
Just who have I been badmouthing??? I never claimed to have a plan, I really don't care much about cats nor do I hope to one day hunt them? I would like to see all the hunters take notice to the fact that anti-hunting groups are rallying around the country and planning an attack on Wisc. becuase of the cat hunting proposal. If hunters don't show up in large numbers at the April 11th meetings, we are going to have to live with what the antis vote for us... And, yes, given the choice, I would rather not have converted 100's of nonhunting cat lovers to ANTI-HUNTERS.
Just who have I been badmouthing??? I never claimed to have a plan, I really don't care much about cats nor do I hope to one day hunt them? I would like to see all the hunters take notice to the fact that anti-hunting groups are rallying around the country and planning an attack on Wisc. becuase of the cat hunting proposal. If hunters don't show up in large numbers at the April 11th meetings, we are going to have to live with what the antis vote for us... And, yes, given the choice, I would rather not have converted 100's of nonhunting cat lovers to ANTI-HUNTERS.
03-28-2005, 07:04 PM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: cazenovia, NY USA
Posts: 2,973
RE: If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
ferral cats is not, and should never have been a hunting/hunter issue. It is a public Environmental issue only!
No small game license, or any license should be required to dispose of a non-native, free ranging, un-colared, domestic cat.
No small game license, or any license should be required to dispose of a non-native, free ranging, un-colared, domestic cat.
By the way - regardless of what you might think - I have a decent grasp for wildlife management issues.
I took your advice and looked on the net a little regarding the problem. You are right there is quite a bit of information out there:
http://www.feralcatfoundation.org/
http://www.cvm.tamu.edu/afcat/
http://www.petfinder.org/shelters/MD23.html
http://www.feralcat.com/sarah3.html
http://www.feralfriends.org/ff_about.html
They go on, and on, and on..........
To LEGISLATE hunters to control the issue - as in the Wisconsin Proposal - is Suicidal for the hunting community's image.
WORSE - hunters get on a board like this - and talk about (even gloat) that they "kill as many as they can" - and seemingly ENJOY it - just for the sake of killing a cat. Maybe you don't care that this ruin's a hunter's image - but I do.
Is it a problem - I think you are correct - but not a legislative one - certaintly not one to be controlled by hunters.
FH
03-28-2005, 08:59 PM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
I wasn't speaking of pro-cat websites. I was speaking of scientific publications regarding the impacts of feral cats on wildlife. I'm not fired up about this for no reason. Feral cats are a huge threat and should be treated as such.
If you have a grasp of wildlife management then you will also understand that if this is as socially unacceptable as you claim then you know that the state wildlife agency will never do it. IF they have scoped the public properly. If they haven't and they are doing it off the cuff then they will get what they get. What your asking is for people to take responsibility for their "pets" with (at least in most peoples minds) no suffcient reason to do so. Which hasn't happened to a sufficient level in known history.
In case you don't understand human nature, the responsibilities that impact society have to be enforced and people have to be motivated to abstain from certain behaviors damaging to society...this is why we have laws. Public education is generally the best way to coerce people into doing certain things (without legislation) by showing them why it's a good idea. However, this is expensive, a bit of a long shot in terms of guarenteed success, and is usually only successful in winning over those still on the fence. Others on the opposite side generally are not swayed because they simply won't participate.
As we have learned from socioecosystem management, stakeholders are the most important factor. Beyond wildlife, beyond fisheries. If your stakeholders (the majority) believe something is unacceptable then you have failed. Because after all we manage these resources for them. This is why, generally, legislation is a last resort. Not being a Wisconsin resident, being an extremely rabid anti- feral-cat person, and working in a Fish and Game agency, I have an idea of what is happening at the top levels.
Proposing a law to shoot fluffly kitties is a nightmare for a wildlife agency, and I have faith that they aren't doing this for no reason. Now, this WILL alienate a sector of the public, but like I said before..they aren't neccesarily the fence sitters, they are most likely already in the pro-cat camp. One other thing to remember...the sectors of the public with the most extreme views are also the most vocal. When managers seek public input they almost always recieve the most responses from those with extreme views. Simply because those with a concrete stance on the subject are much more likely to take the time to offer input rather than those that are neutral. So we get a sample from the public where the majority appears to have an extreme view one way or the other, what we have to remembe is that this doesn't neccessarily represent the true desires of the public.
So faced with a choice of a) alleviating the problem in the most efficient manner and alienating a small portion of the public and b) doing nothing to appease the pro-cat people, they chose A. I agree with you that we (as hunters) can't afford to lose ANY of the public's support but we also can't let that fear get in the way of doing our jobs and managing the public's resources.
So have a little faith in your state wildlife guys. Really they can't lose, any legislation has to be approved by a vote so the democratic process will determine what the people want, which is as it should be. Really, if the porposed legislation fails they are in a worse situation because then they have to examine more complex and expensive options (though they may be more socially acceptable).
Farmhunter: Contrary to some of my comments, I understand that you know much more about certain things than I do and I respect your advice most of time. I always try to add something helpful if it's within my knowledge and oftentimes two intelligent people will not always agree. I simply want to engender debate among the more knowledgable people on this board. "Stirring the pot" so to speak is often times the best way to get the really good ideas to rise to the surface.
SO...if this proposed legislation seems to be a really poor idea to you then lets try to come up with a solution we think will work and is socially acceptable.
Since we know that there are a dearth of stray cats out there and if they were desired as pets, they wouldn't be strays..so we can't expect any kind of mass adoption program to work.
Population control in general usually means 'removal', and removal usually means killing. I don't think transplanting would work either. So the only options that come to mind at the moment would be a) killing or b) reproductive control.
Birth control would require a huge effort and be prohibitively expensive and would take at least a few decades to realize results. But, if that many people are against killing as a method of removal than perhaps they would be willing ot volunteer and help. Can we think of any other suggestions?
If you have a grasp of wildlife management then you will also understand that if this is as socially unacceptable as you claim then you know that the state wildlife agency will never do it. IF they have scoped the public properly. If they haven't and they are doing it off the cuff then they will get what they get. What your asking is for people to take responsibility for their "pets" with (at least in most peoples minds) no suffcient reason to do so. Which hasn't happened to a sufficient level in known history.
In case you don't understand human nature, the responsibilities that impact society have to be enforced and people have to be motivated to abstain from certain behaviors damaging to society...this is why we have laws. Public education is generally the best way to coerce people into doing certain things (without legislation) by showing them why it's a good idea. However, this is expensive, a bit of a long shot in terms of guarenteed success, and is usually only successful in winning over those still on the fence. Others on the opposite side generally are not swayed because they simply won't participate.
As we have learned from socioecosystem management, stakeholders are the most important factor. Beyond wildlife, beyond fisheries. If your stakeholders (the majority) believe something is unacceptable then you have failed. Because after all we manage these resources for them. This is why, generally, legislation is a last resort. Not being a Wisconsin resident, being an extremely rabid anti- feral-cat person, and working in a Fish and Game agency, I have an idea of what is happening at the top levels.
Proposing a law to shoot fluffly kitties is a nightmare for a wildlife agency, and I have faith that they aren't doing this for no reason. Now, this WILL alienate a sector of the public, but like I said before..they aren't neccesarily the fence sitters, they are most likely already in the pro-cat camp. One other thing to remember...the sectors of the public with the most extreme views are also the most vocal. When managers seek public input they almost always recieve the most responses from those with extreme views. Simply because those with a concrete stance on the subject are much more likely to take the time to offer input rather than those that are neutral. So we get a sample from the public where the majority appears to have an extreme view one way or the other, what we have to remembe is that this doesn't neccessarily represent the true desires of the public.
So faced with a choice of a) alleviating the problem in the most efficient manner and alienating a small portion of the public and b) doing nothing to appease the pro-cat people, they chose A. I agree with you that we (as hunters) can't afford to lose ANY of the public's support but we also can't let that fear get in the way of doing our jobs and managing the public's resources.
So have a little faith in your state wildlife guys. Really they can't lose, any legislation has to be approved by a vote so the democratic process will determine what the people want, which is as it should be. Really, if the porposed legislation fails they are in a worse situation because then they have to examine more complex and expensive options (though they may be more socially acceptable).
Farmhunter: Contrary to some of my comments, I understand that you know much more about certain things than I do and I respect your advice most of time. I always try to add something helpful if it's within my knowledge and oftentimes two intelligent people will not always agree. I simply want to engender debate among the more knowledgable people on this board. "Stirring the pot" so to speak is often times the best way to get the really good ideas to rise to the surface.
SO...if this proposed legislation seems to be a really poor idea to you then lets try to come up with a solution we think will work and is socially acceptable.
Since we know that there are a dearth of stray cats out there and if they were desired as pets, they wouldn't be strays..so we can't expect any kind of mass adoption program to work.
Population control in general usually means 'removal', and removal usually means killing. I don't think transplanting would work either. So the only options that come to mind at the moment would be a) killing or b) reproductive control.
Birth control would require a huge effort and be prohibitively expensive and would take at least a few decades to realize results. But, if that many people are against killing as a method of removal than perhaps they would be willing ot volunteer and help. Can we think of any other suggestions?
03-29-2005, 04:03 PM
#27
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Helenville WI USA
Posts: 900
RE: If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
Brutal Attitude,
You are once again speaking un-educated... There are no governing agencies in Wisc. supporting the cat hunting bill. The cat hunting bill was brought about by a hunter from Madison who hates cats and would like to shoot them without being fined, yes there are a few Wildlife managers that agree with the guy, but our WDNR has made it clear to me, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THIS LAW. Why don't you stick to ruining Idaho's game laws? I do not think the cats are causeing such a problem that it is worth giveing the anti-hunters a huge advantage in Wisc. A simple large fine for not properly careing for animals, and a little public education would go much farther. The local warden here told me, this cat thing is already causeing huge set backs for us.
You are once again speaking un-educated... There are no governing agencies in Wisc. supporting the cat hunting bill. The cat hunting bill was brought about by a hunter from Madison who hates cats and would like to shoot them without being fined, yes there are a few Wildlife managers that agree with the guy, but our WDNR has made it clear to me, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THIS LAW. Why don't you stick to ruining Idaho's game laws? I do not think the cats are causeing such a problem that it is worth giveing the anti-hunters a huge advantage in Wisc. A simple large fine for not properly careing for animals, and a little public education would go much farther. The local warden here told me, this cat thing is already causeing huge set backs for us.
03-29-2005, 05:12 PM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
Contrary to what you believe, I have done some reading on the subject. It was my mistake I should have clarified that the Conservation Congress has posed the question to the public and it will be forwarded to the DNR after public comment. The points of my post still remain. The avenue in which the proposal reaches the DNR is irrelevant, the process will still be the same, the only difference in the CC is gathering initial public opinion. The proposal can reach the DNR and be refused if they feel it is unsupported. Attempting to insult me without refuting my points isn't helping your case any. Lets add something constructive. I agree that enforcing the existing laws (assuming it can be done now when it hasn't in the past) and public education is the best choice. .
03-30-2005, 05:16 PM
#29
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Helenville WI USA
Posts: 900
RE: If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
Attempting to insult me without refuting my points isn't helping your case any. Lets add something constructive.
Ok so how about instead of just badmouthing someone for doing something, why don't you suggest a better plan. It's pretty easy to bad mouth other people's suggestion, not so easy to come up with a solution yourself.
03-30-2005, 05:29 PM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: If you believe there should be an open season on feral cats!
I apologize if I have offended you. I'm being about as polite as I can be to a person who has a mediocre understanding of the complexities of the issue, keeps repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, and is obviously unable to acheive any kind of new idea or solution. Your blowing hot air and making a mountain out of a mole hill. Get back to me when your doomsday scenario comes true...because it won't.
