When the animals exist in surplus and are spreading diseases, they pose a tangible health risk to the human population.
If these were rare animals, I would likely feel differently. However, cats are common creatures. The best thing is, of course, to prevent it from happening in the first place by spaying and neutering the feral population.
2007-02-10 02:22:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by achue500 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
Humans are in fact an animal. Animal shelters cannot find homes for all strays and they can only hold so many at a time. I am an animal lover and I hate the fact that some animals must be put down but it is necessary. Some strays are very sick and it would cost the shelter a lot of money to heal the animal that is not guaranted a home. Some animals are just down right mean, and would not make a good pet to anyone. The people who are crying over the animals should either attempt to adopt some of the pound victims or shut up about it.
2007-02-10 02:27:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by noneya10000 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
How do you kill something humanely?
Would you be the one to test out their methods just to see if it is, in fact, humane?
Ever heard of an animal shelter?
We've been co-existing for millenia. How come it is all of a sudden so hard?
You should remove the food sources if you don't want stray animals. Rats will eat feces and get into open trash cans. Same goes for other pests. They will also eat the pet food if it's left outside.
I live in Chicago and I don't see any problems when people take care of their mess but when the garbage cans are left open and strewn across the alleys and dogs aren't cleaned up after, in come the rats and the pests and the stray cats who eat the rats.
I grew up with 6 cats and have 3 new kittens. I adopted all of my cats from the NO-KILL shelter. Had I thought about it, I would have went to the KILL shelter and saved some poor animals.
The people who sit hee and point fingers at people say the don't do this and don't do that aren't any better.
"Be the change in the world you want to see." -M.G.
2007-02-10 02:38:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kahlo 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Why is it that everyone seems to only look at the picture in small parts, and not at the whole scheme of things?? First of all without irresponsible people not getting their pets fixed, there wouldn't be a problem as bad as it is; second of all, People are overpopulated also, but there is no law to euthinize people (although there should be of some sort), and the diseases that these animals might or might not have had are 95% of the time not zoonotic, which means they are not passed onto humans,only passed from cat to cat! Rabies is the largest zoonotic disease from animal to human, and unless they were all hydrophobic (afraid of water), I'm pretty sure they didn't have rabies! As far as who deserves to live more? Animals by far, as they might not contribute to taxes, or pay bills, but they know how to love unconditionally and because they dont pay taxes or pay bills, they don't contribute to global warming or pollution from driving multi-million dollar vehicles to show up the neighbor as to whos a better earner, or fight about whos paying whos welfare....in the animal world, money has no meaning,and in our world it should be a necessary evil, not a necessity!
2007-02-10 08:52:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by blueeyedwolf1977 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
If you really believe in God you should never ask such questions to his subjects knowing fully well that answer to such questions can be given only and only by God alone. Had any living soul known answers, it would have already been recorded and made known to the whole world, Instead what we got is **** and bull stories and theories given by branded religions, which do not make any sense to an ordinary human mind.So questions when and how creation came into being and when and how humans came into being can be said to be known only to the true one, the God himself..And if your are scientific minded, then for your answer, study the theory of evolution by natural selection, there is unlimited evidence left over million of years, which shows without any doubt as to how species evolved on this planet earth over geographical times. If you credit creation of humans to God, he need not have created the amoeba first with millions of other species which have no connection or relevance to humans, thus in evolution, you will find that there is no designed intelligence in the creation, even though intelligence par excellence is the result of natural selection.Even then if you like, you can always attribute this evolutionary process to same power called God.
2016-05-25 00:38:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED THIS!!! I am a animal control officer and just last week I encountered a similiar situation there were several people complainig of STRAY CATS I found out someone was feeding them they werewild FERAL cats NOT PETS they could not beadopted and I trapped 21 cats the person feeding these cats sent my director a NASTY EMAIL saying I only wanted to slaughter the cats these cats were terrozing the nhood I do not believe in trap and release they need to be humanely destroyed when they are not adoptable if you trap and release how do you keep the required rabies shots up? retrap every year I DONT THINK SO!!!!!!! The person feeding also said he spent $400.00 a month feeding these cats WELL THEN MY QUESTION IS Why not take that money and spay neutre before you end up with21 cats I may add several of these cats were pregnaut, I will never understand these CAT PEOPLE fine if you like cats but in my 12 years of being a animal control officer I have found CAT RIGHTS PEOPLE dont have 2,3, or 4 cats they always have 12, 20 25, just ridicilous numbers of cats they choose to hoard we have a cat group to I call them the CIA (Cat Idiot Association) you were perfectly right in getting these cats gone. GOOD FOR YOU FORSTANDING UP TO THE C.I.A>!!!!!!
2007-02-10 06:02:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by dog hunter 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
I don't think it's a question of rights or who's "more important" but a question of responsibility. We (humans) domesticated cats and we have a responsibility to them. They can't really go back to the wild and a feral existence in the city is "nasty, brutish, and short".
Some people abandoned their responsibility to these cats so what does the community do?
I would vote for rounding up as many as could be caught and euthanizing the ones too battered to live and cleaning up the better off ones, "fixing" them and giving them shots, and trying to find homes for them.
For the record, I have one cat, a shelter rescue. She is on top of the computer as I type this.
People should be told to keep their garbage in containers with tight lids. Feral cats love open dumpsters.
If the community has so many cat lovers, either they can adopt the cats, or set up a neuter and release program for the ones too wild to ever be house cats again but healthy enough to live. People commit themselves to taking care of a clowder of free-living cats that have been "fixed" and given shots. They are fed and looked after and sick ones are trapped again and taken to the vet. Because they are fixed, the cat community will eventually die out naturally.
Except for rabies, which can be taken taken care of with a shot, cats don't really carry any diseases people can get. Most cat viruses can live only in cats. Some times they have similar names to people viruses like "cat flu" but your cat can sneeze in your face and you won't get sick.
To say a cat has the right to either a miserable existence eating scraps of garbage and probably dying under the wheels of a car or the right to a painless death is to put up a limited range of options.
2007-02-10 03:27:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
A stray cat's life is a short, hungry, miserable existence. In the case you've stated, I believe the most humane thing is to round them up and try to adopt out the adoptables and humanely put the others down. The population is only going to continue to grow without any intervention.
It breaks my heart to see all the homeless cats out there and makes me so angry with PEOPLE who allow their cats to remain unneutered or unspayed. It's cruel and irresponsible.
The overpopulation of animals is really a tragedy. I give money to the humane society and I support a local rescue group with my time, money and supplies. Thank goodness for people like them.
Those poor, sad cats that you speak of are much better off.
Whether or not they can spread any infections to humans is questionable, but if there are a lot of males ripping each other to shreds and females having more feral, hungry litters, then it IS the humane thing to do. Domestic cats are not supposed to be wild and it is NOT a 'natural' environment for them. So, for me,
it's not a question of them being a nuisance or a 'threat' to humans, but simply the necessary steps to stop the suffering.
This is all assuming that the situation was as dire as the Asker claims, of course.
Too bad there aren't enough people that are willing to be more responsible and provide decent homes to them.
Also, I do believe in the trap, neuter, release programs that are in place in some cities. But, if we want programs like that to work, people have to do more than support them with words. They need MONEY. And, if anyone has ever actually worked or volunteered at a shelter, you see first hand how dire the unwanted animal problem is. Not just for cats, but for dogs, as well. There's not nearly enough room, resources, or money.
It's a very sad situation.
Polly
2007-02-10 02:31:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by Polly 4
·
2⤊
3⤋
I think ALL life is important and that we can co-exist. But some believe the only way to deal with things is to KILL! That is just wrong!
TNR (trap-neuter-return) is the only solution to the problem. Trap and kill does not work and they wouldn't have to continue doing it all the time.
When they trap and kill they will NOT be able to catch them all and then what is left will reproduce in large quantities. When you TNR then once they are all sterilized then all you have to do is care for them until they die off. And that will be sooner than later for living in the wild they do not live much more than 3 years if they are lucky and smart enough.
Once they are sterilized then you won't have the problems that existed before like fighting and spraying. So it is a win-win situation.
Why do humans think that KILLING is the solution. It makes me ashamed to be a part of the human race.
2007-02-10 02:21:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I'm curious how many of those cat lovers ran out and attempted to adopt one of these animals.
Not many, I bet. Talk is cheap, unless you're using the roaming feature on your cell. It's easy to say "it's the principle of the thing" when you're not the one who has to pay for the price of that principle.
As much as it rankles the cat lovers, the interspecies rule of diplomacy is that might makes right. There is no peaceful coexistence. Faster,mightier things with sharp teeth eat slower, less-ighty things. It's not just a dog eat dog world, it's a dog eat CAT world.
Cats weren't going to die out if these strays were rounded up and euthanized. They were posing a health risk to humans, which is bigger and has sharper technological teeth. We win.
In nature, animals co-exist either out of necessity or because their activities do not bother each other. Same here. Once the cats posed a health risk, 'twas time for them to go.
2007-02-10 02:29:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋