From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:55:44 GMT

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:



>  The latest plank in the animal-rights platform: cat control. Animal
>  lovers want to make it illegal for people to let their kitties out of the
>  house. It seems that animal-rights activists have discovered that cats
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who are we talking about?  There are many different groups of
various stripes and positions.  Is this a well known group of
a large following are is it merely some fringe group?



>  have a nasty tendency to kill birds, rabbits, frogs, and other cute
>  creatures. "A housecat hunts for fun," says Merrit Clifton, former editor
>  of The Animal's Agenda. "It gets all its calories indoors, and then it
>  goes out to devastate whatever there is to devestate."

"Former editor", is this it?  Clifton here doesn't even say 
anything about keeping cats indoors.  Is this the best evidence 
this pitiful yellow journalism rag can muster?

Now, if you want some real facts on this issue about cat
predation of urban wildlife then read:

    B. M. Fitzgerald  "Is cat control needed to protect urgan
          wildlife?", ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 1990, 17(2):168

    P. Jarvis  "Unban cats as pests and pets", ibid, p. 169.

Both authors argue that there is no real problem, that cats
are simply replacing other predators like weasels and that
about 44% of the birds killed are the over-abundant urban
House Sparrows.

Anyway, I doubt that anyone here is really interested in the
facts.  The desparate concern here seems to find some sorry reason
to again vilify animal rights advocates.


>  Richard Roberts, executive director of Chicago's Christian Industrial
>  League, has learned a few things about people who listen to National
>  Public Radio. On July 4, the league threw a barbecue for the city's
>  homeless. Roberts did an interview publicizing the event on Chicago 
>  public-radio station WBEZ and mentioned that the picnic would include the
>  launching of red, white, and blue balloons. The league's office was 
>  flooded with phone calls...protesting the balloon launch. Callers feared
>  that birds might try to eat the balloons and choke on them. Not one
>  caller volunteered to help with the event. Asks Roberts, "Where were
>  these 'concerned' people last winter when we ran out of food at the
>  shelters and were in desperate need for help?"


> They were probably trying
>  to train their cats not to kill birds.

How does Mr. Richard Roberts, director of Chicago's Christian
Industrial League, know this to be true?  Obviously not an
empircal statement of what is probable, merely a sarcasm.
So much for Christian love and kindness towards all living things.

Well, since mere anecdote seems to be the level of evidence that
is here so readily acceptable, I might just as well point out
that I donate money to BOTH human and animal concerns.  I have
also volunteered many hundreds of hours to helping BOTH people and
animals.  


>Reprinted without permission from:
>  Reason
   ^^^^^^
How very pretentious and misleading!

Certainly not an academic journal were reason is exercised
at its higher level. Indeed, not much "reason" at all is
evinced in the above, just as the "Plain Truth" magazine hardly c
contains truth so much as propaganda.  What's the matter here, d
doesn't anyone know how to recognize and read good literature, 
can't people any longer disciminate between thoughtful
argument and mere amphigory that doesn't even rhyme let
alone reason.

                                     ted



A