As the owner now of two cats, I can't help but respond to this recent article that appeared in the New York Times. Apparently, a bird watcher shot a cat with a .22 calibre rifle because he believed it was killing the birds. He doesn't deny that he shot the cat. The point of contention in the suit is whether the cat was feral.
I don't know how the law treats questions of feralness (ferality?), but this sounds like a clear case of animal cruelty to me. We took in a stray kitten just this week, gave it a name the other night, and are slowly introducing it to our other cat -- who probably wishes he had a .22 in the closet right now that he could use on the small quadriped that's taking some attention away from him -- and I'd say this cat is no longer feral. She's quite comfortable living here, accepting our pets and attention in return for lots of purrs, soft mews, and an inordinate amount of methane gas. (Surely those field mice and moles have worked through you system by now, Oreo. What on earth is wrong with your intestines?!)
Beyond that, how can a man who loves animals shoot and kill a cat? Is he not human?
Humans care for those who are less fortunate than themslves, like Texas toll collector John Newland, who named Mama Cat. The cat lived under a toll bridge but gladly accepted food and toys and bedding from Mr. Newland. I won't get into the vitriolic debate between bird bloggers and cat bloggers, who are writing hateful posts about the other, but I'll say this: a man who would kill a defenseless animal (I don't think the claws and teeth were any threat to the admitted cat killer) is no better than a thief. He deserves punishment.
I don't think it's as heinous a crime as rape or murder of a person, but it's despicable and cannot be condoned. The two years and $10,000 he faces seem appropriate to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment