YES!! Cat Killer Recalled

This is an update of something that happened 4 to 6 weeks ago

Brandy Alexandre wrote:
Dave wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:


If you would have read the complete thred you would know.



What thread? This is a brand new thread according to my newsreader.

In article , Sherry wrote:
(snipped)
You presume too much. And I resent that. I once had strays dogs come into my
yard and kill a kitten. By your logic would I be wrong if I had shot the
strays (I didn't, but I there is probably some law against that on the
books)?

Not only by *my* logic, but by city ordinance in most cities in the U.S.
Besides being against the law to kill animals (which obviously from the
article, it is in Nebraska), it's also against the law to discharge a firearm
in city limits. There are more humane alternatives.


Uh, they were hunting dogs. I don't live in a city. No law against firearms.
Its farmland, far from roads, where I would expect kittens to be safe. Never
had a problem before. I presume some hunter (who shouldn't have been
there) brought the animals (I never saw him, but I heard far off gun shots).
The kittens were, by the way, born to a 'barn' cat (i.e stray that wasn't my
pet, runs away when I approach) that lived outside but hung around the farm.

I don't know what the laws are like in Nebraska. Didn't realize the article
took place there til you mentioned it and I noticed a small Lincoln,NE at the
bottom of the article.



Your "I hate people who make excuses" remark is I take it because of my
"I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about".

No, wrong again. Your "I hate people who make excuses for animal abusers" comes
from your post which said, quote:
"That said, its not clear he's totally at fault. Sounds like she (the
neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first time
her animals had gotten in to his stuff."

As if the fact that the cats were "getting into" his feed made it *possibly*
okay to trap and kill them--you say *possibly* it "wasn't his fault." . After
all, it wasn't the first time? Did it ever occur to you he could *possibly*
keep the feed in a more secure place? He could have called animal control?
1) its a common ruse of spammers and
2) should never be done in a post without breifly explaining (whats important
to you may not be important to me ands its rude to presume so).


No, I pointed out that we don't know what happened. From what was written,
I don't know that he didn't call animal control, etc. Or if strays animals
were injuring any animals that he might keep there (after all he has feed,
what's it for?). Or what he actually did to the strays - were they killed or
released somewhere far away? (and I didn't know the traps weren't like
HaveAHeart traps). Remember I knew nothing of other articles, posts etc.
Karen's seemed to be concluding he was the 'bad guy' based soley on
this article and I was pointing out that the article
didn't go into enough depth to make the conclusion she was making. The article
was more of a "he said, she said" story, hard to tell who was making what up.



Posting a link is the accept method of directing people to photos, news
articles, etc. If you'd lurked long enough, you'd have realized Karen has been
posting here for years, and is no spammer.


But you usually give a short description of what the link is, why its there.
Karen didn't. Nor did she indicate it related to previous posts. Neither did
the linked article indicate there were previous related articles. I, like most
people, don't read every post out there. She really, really should have said
more - just a bit more. I'm probaly not the only person who would have run
across her post and wondered about it. I've been lurking
for quite a while, doesn't mean I necessarily recognize her name.




And I can do without your bad attempt at sarcasm.

I can do without your spouting off defending an animal abuser when you know
nothing about the circumstances. I'm glad you've learned the circumstances now.

Then post references so I can tell what your talking about. If you leave me
without all the details, I make conclusions based upon what is presented.
Karen, to her credit, realized, I was without knowlege of previous posts, and
clued me in where she was coming from and why.





Sherry

In article , Sherry wrote:
(snipped)
You presume too much. And I resent that. I once had strays dogs come into my
yard and kill a kitten. By your logic would I be wrong if I had shot the
strays (I didn't, but I there is probably some law against that on the
books)?

Not only by *my* logic, but by city ordinance in most cities in the U.S.
Besides being against the law to kill animals (which obviously from the
article, it is in Nebraska), it's also against the law to discharge a firearm
in city limits. There are more humane alternatives.


Uh, they were hunting dogs. I don't live in a city. No law against firearms.
Its farmland, far from roads, where I would expect kittens to be safe. Never
had a problem before. I presume some hunter (who shouldn't have been
there) brought the animals (I never saw him, but I heard far off gun shots).
The kittens were, by the way, born to a 'barn' cat (i.e stray that wasn't my
pet, runs away when I approach) that lived outside but hung around the farm.

I don't know what the laws are like in Nebraska. Didn't realize the article
took place there til you mentioned it and I noticed a small Lincoln,NE at the
bottom of the article.



Your "I hate people who make excuses" remark is I take it because of my
"I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about".

No, wrong again. Your "I hate people who make excuses for animal abusers" comes
from your post which said, quote:
"That said, its not clear he's totally at fault. Sounds like she (the
neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first time
her animals had gotten in to his stuff."

As if the fact that the cats were "getting into" his feed made it *possibly*
okay to trap and kill them--you say *possibly* it "wasn't his fault." . After
all, it wasn't the first time? Did it ever occur to you he could *possibly*
keep the feed in a more secure place? He could have called animal control?
1) its a common ruse of spammers and
2) should never be done in a post without breifly explaining (whats important
to you may not be important to me ands its rude to presume so).


No, I pointed out that we don't know what happened. From what was written,
I don't know that he didn't call animal control, etc. Or if strays animals
were injuring any animals that he might keep there (after all he has feed,
what's it for?). Or what he actually did to the strays - were they killed or
released somewhere far away? (and I didn't know the traps weren't like
HaveAHeart traps). Remember I knew nothing of other articles, posts etc.
Karen's seemed to be concluding he was the 'bad guy' based soley on
this article and I was pointing out that the article
didn't go into enough depth to make the conclusion she was making. The article
was more of a "he said, she said" story, hard to tell who was making what up.



Posting a link is the accept method of directing people to photos, news
articles, etc. If you'd lurked long enough, you'd have realized Karen has been
posting here for years, and is no spammer.


But you usually give a short description of what the link is, why its there.
Karen didn't. Nor did she indicate it related to previous posts. Neither did
the linked article indicate there were previous related articles. I, like most
people, don't read every post out there. She really, really should have said
more - just a bit more. I'm probaly not the only person who would have run
across her post and wondered about it. I've been lurking
for quite a while, doesn't mean I necessarily recognize her name.




And I can do without your bad attempt at sarcasm.

I can do without your spouting off defending an animal abuser when you know
nothing about the circumstances. I'm glad you've learned the circumstances now.

Then post references so I can tell what your talking about. If you leave me
without all the details, I make conclusions based upon what is presented.
Karen, to her credit, realized, I was without knowlege of previous posts, and
clued me in where she was coming from and why.





Sherry

Uh, they were hunting dogs. I don't live in a city. No law against firearms.
Its farmland, far from roads, where I would expect kittens to be safe. Never
had a problem before. I presume some hunter (who shouldn't have been
there) brought the animals (I never saw him, but I heard far off gun shots).
The kittens were, by the way, born to a 'barn' cat (i.e stray that wasn't my
pet, runs away when I approach) that lived outside but hung around the farm.

Actually, in Missouri, the state law (not city ordinance) provides:
578.012. Animal abuse--penalties
1. A person is guilty of animal abuse when a person:
(1) Intentionally or purposely kills an animal in any manner not allowed by or
expressly exempted from the provisions of sections 578.005 to 578.023 and
273.030, RSMo: (2) Purposely or intentionally causes injury or suffering to an
animal; or (3) Having ownership or custody of an animal knowingly fails to
provide adequate care or adequate control.

Also, a new bill for the State of Missouri authored by Patrick Dougherty (and I
am not sure whether it passed) provides:

"SB 490 - This act increases the penalties for animal abuse. Persons who
maliciously and intentionally main, mutilate, torture or kill a living animal
will be guilty of a Class D felony and may be fined up to $20,000. Upon
conviction all animals seized or impounded will be forfeited. Persons convicted
must attend counseling and will be liable for costs of impoundment and
counseling. "

Unfortunately, laws like that are never enforced in rural areas, mostly becuase
people have no access to animal control services, and county government
ususally doesn't provide that. At best, some counties have a Humane Society
where stray animals can be taken.

But my point is, the law doesn't say, "Unless the animal is a nuisance--then
you can just kill it."

Sherry

Sherry

Uh, they were hunting dogs. I don't live in a city. No law against firearms.
Its farmland, far from roads, where I would expect kittens to be safe. Never
had a problem before. I presume some hunter (who shouldn't have been
there) brought the animals (I never saw him, but I heard far off gun shots).
The kittens were, by the way, born to a 'barn' cat (i.e stray that wasn't my
pet, runs away when I approach) that lived outside but hung around the farm.

Actually, in Missouri, the state law (not city ordinance) provides:
578.012. Animal abuse--penalties
1. A person is guilty of animal abuse when a person:
(1) Intentionally or purposely kills an animal in any manner not allowed by or
expressly exempted from the provisions of sections 578.005 to 578.023 and
273.030, RSMo: (2) Purposely or intentionally causes injury or suffering to an
animal; or (3) Having ownership or custody of an animal knowingly fails to
provide adequate care or adequate control.

Also, a new bill for the State of Missouri authored by Patrick Dougherty (and I
am not sure whether it passed) provides:

"SB 490 - This act increases the penalties for animal abuse. Persons who
maliciously and intentionally main, mutilate, torture or kill a living animal
will be guilty of a Class D felony and may be fined up to $20,000. Upon
conviction all animals seized or impounded will be forfeited. Persons convicted
must attend counseling and will be liable for costs of impoundment and
counseling. "

Unfortunately, laws like that are never enforced in rural areas, mostly becuase
people have no access to animal control services, and county government
ususally doesn't provide that. At best, some counties have a Humane Society
where stray animals can be taken.

But my point is, the law doesn't say, "Unless the animal is a nuisance--then
you can just kill it."

Sherry

Sherry