Natural History

Posted in animal welfare, author, Carnivorans | Tagged Mark Derr | 20 Comments

20 Responses

1. on July 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm TNR advocates steal Mark Derr’s cat | Pet Health Articles Around the Web

   […] The Retriever, Dog, & Wildlife Blog Posted in Pet Care Articles | Tagged advocates, Derr’s, Mark, steal | Leave a comment […]

   
   
2. on July 27, 2012 at 3:48 pm California rattlesnake

   Thanks for this post. A google search led me to a very clear op-ed article by Derrr on Cesar Millan’s style, appropriately titled “Pack of Lies”

   
   
3. on July 27, 2012 at 4:00 pm TNR advocates steal Mark Derr’s cat | Learn More about Pet Care

   […] The Retriever, Dog, & Wildlife Blog Posted in Pet Health Articles | Tagged advocates, Derr’s, Mark, steal | Leave a comment […]

   
   
4. on July 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm EmilyS

   “the reproductive freedom of the cat is taken away for no reason other than that a group of people has decided they are too low born and too abundant to be allowed to reproduce.”

   is he f’ng kidding? If there’s anything our world doesn’t need (regardless of whether or not “overpopulation” exists) it’s more randomly bred cats/dogs especially feral cats

   
   
   • on July 28, 2012 at 9:14 am Dave

     Selective quoting and knee-jerk reaction your statement.

     Here is the other half of the paragraph:

     “Hard evidence of cat overpopulation is seldom if ever produced for any given region or area, nor is there much evidence that trap-neuter-return programs reduce the feral cat population. They seem best for managing cat colonies to extinction, as long as spaying and neutering are accompanied by shutting down recruitment. (Killing the cats in shelters doesn’t suppress the feral cat population either, primarily because not enough cats are killed each year.)”

     The article was not designed to defend his free-roaming cat, but rather to question whether or not TNR programs should exist.

     
     
     • on July 28, 2012 at 1:41 pm EmilyS

       no, he was whining that the cat he lets run free with no identification was caught and returned in a damaged condition, though there was no way to identify the cat as owned, and no way for the trappers to know where to return it. His statement is NOT about TNR.. it’s about his own snobbery at some “other” group of people and their allege beliefs about the social status of cats (“too low born”).

       Just a typical irresponsible cat owner.

       
       
       • on July 28, 2012 at 6:14 pm Dave

         Ah, I see.

         Another dog-breeder or owner with poor reading comprehension. Of course you do not see the problem with TNR as Mark Derr is pointing out.

         As a Pitbull advocate, you are so quick to point out the flaws in others by cherry-picking sentences and reading between the lines in order to promote a rose-coloured view of your breed in a misguided attempt to bring a sense of superiority over someone who is a well-respected writer in Psychology Today.

         
         
5. on July 27, 2012 at 8:59 pm Peggy Richter

   The article makes it clear that the cat was NOT on the owner’s property. Their right to insist that the cat be left alone ended when it exited the owner’s property. And apparently the cat had no id either. Now maybe the TNR people should be equipped with telepathy to know this was a pet cat just “cruising” around, but sadly, they aren’t. The author admits the cat can’t be kept inside. In my area, such a cat becomes coyote food in short order. I have no sympathy with those who think their animals should be free to roam on other’s property at will. It was their choice to let the cat run free (and thereby subject to injury from other cats, dogs, cars, and TNR folk) and they have to accept the consequences of that. They ought to be glad the cat came back at all. And keep it inside.

   
   
6. on July 28, 2012 at 4:45 am Peter Dawson

   I used to chase visiting cats off the property but that was before our village had a rat invasion, and since the pied piper was no longer around it was “come on pretty pussy, welcome to our place”. The rats eventually left us and you know what, I still don’t hastle the visiting moggies albeit aware of their dark deeds in the nearby forest.

   
   
7. on July 28, 2012 at 6:15 am woodsman001

   Licensing and laws do nothing to curb the problem. If cats are required to be licensed then cat-lovers just stop putting collars on their cats, as they did by me. And they won’t even bother getting them micro-chipped, especially not that They want absolutely nothing that can hold them legally responsible, liable, and accountable for the actions of their cats. It’s why many of them even keep cats in the first place. We’re not talking about the topmost responsible citizens of the world, you know. They don’t want that responsibility of what their cat has done coming back on them. If they had even one iota of a sense of responsibility and respect for all other lives on this planet we wouldn’t even be having these discussions.

   On the other hand, I found something that DOES work, and works well, and works fast (well, relative to the years it takes trying to reason with deceitful and lying cat-lovers that accomplishes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING). Where I live cat-lovers have learned that _ALL_ cats, stray and feral, collared or not, ear-tipped or not (because TNR con-artist liars now just clip cats’ ears only without sterilizing or vaccinating them, to protect their hoarded cats from being trapped and euthanized), _ALL_ their cats are humanely shot on sight and buried whenever found away from supervised confinement. (Buried or incinerated to protect our valuable native wildlife from all the deadly diseases these invasive species cats spread today, even after they are dead.)

   The ONLY thing that works is destroying any of their cats found outdoors on your property. They either learn to stop getting more cats that die under the wheels of cars or from animal attacks, or they finally learn how to be a responsible pet owner, respectful neighbor, and learn to keep their invasive species animal under confined supervision, as it should be. Win win win all around. You can either destroy their cat for them humanely, or let their lack of concern for their cat cause it to die inhumanely. Your choice. By destroying their cat for them humanely you are showing them that you care more about their cat than even they do.

   You can’t train a cat to stay home but I found that, in time, you CAN train a cat-owner into being a responsible pet-owner and a respectable neighbor. Most of them are so phenomenally stupid, disrespectful, and criminally irresponsible though that you have to make at least 12-15 of their cats permanently disappear before they even start to figure out what they’ve been doing wrong all during their sorry, useless, and pathetic lives.

   If you live in an area where its not legal to use firearms to destroy any animal that is harming the health, safety, and well-being of you, your family, your own animals, or property (as it is legal in most every area of the nation); then check into laws regarding air-rifles. Ones with ballistics speeds of 700-1200 fps and using pointed vermin-pellets are often prescribed for use on vermin in no-firearms zones. Many of the newer ones even come with their own sound-suppressor designs built-in. Failing that, then there’s always the SSS and TDSS Cat Management Programs that are exploding in popularity worldwide. Shoot, Shovel, & Shut-Up; or Trap, Drown, Shovel, & Shut-Up. Both methods are legal on every square foot of this earth. No local laws were violated if it never happened!

   Good luck!

   
   
8. on July 28, 2012 at 6:33 am woodsman001

   Just remember …. Shoot to maim is punishable under the laws that define animal-cruelty. But shoot to kill is a perfectly legal way to humanely destroy an animal. The same laws that apply to methods of humanely hunting animals also applies to cats. Unlike cat-lovers’ psychotic beliefs, the reality is that a cat is just another animal. It’s NOT their baby, their child, their offspring. Even if they do view their cats that way, letting them roam free is no less criminally irresponsible than them telling their child to go play in the freeway and then blaming the cars for their child’s death. If they let their cat roam free, NO MATTER HOW IT DIES, that is THEIR fault and they can be charged with all laws that clearly define animal-neglect, animal-abandonment, and animal-endangerment.

   In fact, here’s a publication from a study done by the University of Nebraska on the best ways to HUMANELY deal with a feral-cat problem wherever you live. This documentation INCLUDES the best firearms, ammo, and air-rifles required to HUMANELY destroy cats. deenawinter.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ec1781.pdf

   Besides, what difference does it make if the cat gets shot or ran over by a car, attacked by another cat or animal, drowned, or poisoned by plants animals or chemicals (inexpensive 1-adult-strength generic acetaminophen pain-relievers gaining in popularity, for being so species specific). The result is the same. The cause is the same — the fault of the criminally irresponsible pet-owner that let their invasive-species pet roam free. They’ve already proved that their animal is 100% expendable. You can either destroy their cat for them humanely, or let their lack of care cause it to inevitably die inhumanely. They don’t care one bit how their cat might cruelly suffer to death if they let it roam free. Humanely destroy their cat for them before that can happen. Outfit your rifle with a good scope and laser-sight and you’ll not waste even one round of ammo. Out of the hundreds that I had to shoot and bury, not one was an inhumane kill. They all dropped lifeless in under 3 seconds, most often less than 1 second. A fatal chest shot is best.

   
   
   • on July 28, 2012 at 4:29 pm Kathy K

     My father retired to a tiny suburban lot. His neighbors never knew that he “trained” all of their stray animals with a pellet gun. Takes skill, but the gun can be pumped up just enough to sting, but not to penetrate. No animal pee’d or poop’d on his lawn!

     
     
     • on July 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm woodsman001

       That’s one option, but that means the cat only becomes a problem for everyone else. And it doesn’t stop that cat from senselessly destroying all our valuable native wildlife, nor stop them from spreading their many deadly diseases today to both human and native wildlife.

       I am proud to know that NO CAT will EVER leave my land and EVER become a problem for any other life on earth ever again. If only these cat-lovers could be as respectful and responsible to all other life and neighbor on their planet. If everyone thought that way then we wouldn’t even be having these discussions today. I like to completely solve problems. Not just transfer the problem to someone else.

       
       
       • on July 28, 2012 at 6:00 pm retrieverman

         I used to have a dog that took care of all the cat problems.

         
         
         • on July 28, 2012 at 6:07 pm Woodsman001

           “Used to” be a good solution. But not today! That’s VERY dangerous for any dog (or any predator of cats), due to all the deadly diseases that stray cats carry and spread today.

           One winter I tried feeding one of the shot-dead cats on my land to the last few starving opossum (all the rest of my larger native wildlife starved to death from cats destroying all their food sources). Those opossum promptly died from some disease in that cat-meat. Alarming — in that opossum, due to their cooler body temperatures, cannot contract nor transmit many common diseases, not even rabies. They are one of the most disease-free animals in N. America. Yet … something in that cat-meat was able to kill them all. Cats truly are complete and total wastes of flesh. They can’t even be used to feed wild animals safely. Leaving any of these invasive-species cats out in nature, alive OR dead, is no better than intentionally poisoning your native wildlife to death.

           
           
           • on July 28, 2012 at 6:10 pm retrieverman

             It depends upon where you are and your homeowner’s policy. Around here, if a cat’s on your property, it’s fair game for the gun or a good cat dog.

             If you can find old copies of Hunter-Trader-Trapper on Google Books, there used to be a big market for domestic cat fur.

             
             
             • on July 28, 2012 at 6:18 pm Woodsman001

               True, where you are, only depends on local firearms laws. But I wouldn’t suggest anyone use them even for pelts today. Not with the disease problem. Just dressing a cat for its fur could be deadly to the person doing the job. I used one pair of gloves to dispose of cat carcasses, and one shovel. After the last cat was gone I burned the gloves too, and cleaned the shovel with bleach. This is why a shotgun today is a bad idea. Too much splatter. Find the cleanest and quickest kill.

               
               
               • on July 28, 2012 at 6:21 pm retrieverman

                 http://www.abc.net.au/rural/legends/stories/7_1.htm

                 
                 
                 • on July 28, 2012 at 6:31 pm Woodsman001

                   Cool story. :-)

                   The one thing I find interesting, in juxtaposition, is that USA laws are in favor of shooting stray cats, where it’s been if ‘n go there (in Oz). I guess it’s that fine-line that cat-lovers have exploited, where they make good every chance they get of a “shoot to maim” instance to claim how it’s up to “felony” levels in their minds, but totally ignoring that “shoot to kill” is perfectly legal and perfectly humane everywhere in the USA. They shut up real fast when you point out that fine line that they cannot cross.

                   
                   
9. on July 29, 2012 at 11:42 am massugu

   We normally have both dogs and cats at any one time–all rescues. The dogs go outside but only under our supervision. The cats are inside-only (regardless of how they were previously handled.) It doesn’t seem to stunt them in any way and prevents them from becoming pests or casualties. Unfortunately, some of our neighbors aren’t too responsible in this regard (both cats and dogs.) It can be the cause of a lot of friction.

   Pet ownership, like parenting, or stock owning, is a responsibility. If folks don’t want the responsibility attendant upon keeping pets, then they should stick with the electronic surrogates. (My not-so-humble opinion!)

   
   

Comments are closed.