On the Shooting of Cats

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have been reading with a great deal of concern about the plan to declare cats an unprotected species in your state. I see a number of potentially disasterous problems with the proposed changes.

First of all, if the intent of the change is to cut down on the cat population, there are far better ways to do this. In an article I read while researching your proposal, I noticed that with a catch, spay and release program, the feral cat population in the tested region fell by a factor of 2/3. This is considered a phenomenal reduction by the groups who track this information. They say that trap and kill has been the norm in the United States, and has never resulted in this sort of success.

Second, as I understand it, the intent of this bill is to reduce the population of cats despoiling other people's property and killing birds. I can't see this law being useful in the first goal unless property owners are to be allowed to shoot cats on their property. Unless I am badly mistaken most property is closely attached to the property of others, and as such firing on feral cats would result in quite the public hazard. Cats tend to be small and very fast animals, and missed shots could do a great deal of damage to personal property and create a dangerous situation for neighbours working in their yards or children playing nearby. If the bill does not allow the shooting of cats on a person's property then it is unlikely to have much of an effect on the feral cat population. Once again a trap and spay program would be far more effective.

As for the second goal, that of protecting the bird population, the main argument in favor of this seems to be that the cats are not a native species whereas the birds are, and thus killing them would be protecting a native species. How much research has been done into this? Nature has a remarkable way of adapting to gradual changes (such as the introduction of cats), but has a harder time adjusting to suddent changes (such as if a species is hunted to extinction). Historically, most times mankind has tried to intervene on behalf of nature, the results are a worse disaster than if things had been left well enough alone. Eliminate the cats as a preadatory species and any or all of the following could be results:

1) The bird population, now lacking a significant predator, swells to the point that there are insufficient resources to sustain them. Not only do the strip the area of what resources are available, they then die out in great numbers leaving dead birds scattered around the State, thus producing potential health hazards.

2) Another predator, which was previously kept in check by the feral cats, now swells and proves a greater menace to the bird population and possibly other animals and humans.

3) Pests which the cats kept under control are no longer under control thus resulting in greater environmental damage.

I am not a naturalist, so I cannot say for sure which if any of these would happen with certainty. I would hope you would look into the possibilities, however, before launching yet another ill concieved and potentially disasterous program.

Third, how do we define a feral cat? According to everything I have read on the subject, a feral cat is any cat that roams outside without a collar. There are far too many ways a cat may be outside without a collar and not actually be feral that this proposed program would undoubtedly lead to many cherished family pets being killed by hunters. If a cat turns out not to be feral, what punishment will be levied on the hunters?

Consider for a moment, the following hypothetical but not unrealistic situation. A burglar breaks into a home, and steals valuables that are within. On leaving, said burglar is unlikely to secure the premises, and the entry itself may leave a suitable exit for a cat. The family cat, startled by the intruder, escapes the home, and is probably not collared. (For the recored, it was pointed out that many legally owned cats are implanted with microchips, and hence do not need nor wear collars at all.) The cat then encounters a hunter the next day and is shot and killed. For the victimized family, a bad situation has just been made horribly worse.

Now, I realize that I am not eligible to vote in your elections, as I am a citizen of Canada, and so you may think it safe to ignore my voice on this matter. Consider this, however. I will not spend my tourist dollars in any state that supports the shooting of pets, no matter how the bill is worded. I also know a lot of cat lovers who travel frequently, and will make sure to let them know of Wisconsin's stance should this proposal go ahead. I am also in regular contact with many buninesses, and of course free to write my own local, provincial and federal government officials on this issue to further widen a tourism boycott of your state if such barbaric measures are legalized.

I pray that you and your government will see the folly in your proposed law, and have the wisdom to make use of other more humane control measures.

Sincerely,




Colin Neilson, President and Owner, Canada Home Tutoring Agency, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada