Birder Admits Killing Cat, but Was It Animal Cruelty?

This is an interesting story — Birder Admits Killing Cat, but Was It Animal Cruelty? — which brings up once again (see “They Eat Horses Don’t They“) the confusing ways in which we relate to animals. A man shoots a feral cat in order to protect rare birds in a protected area, and is accused of animal cruelty. At the same time thousands of people are out shooting bambi with crossbows and guns.

From my perspective as a vegetarian I don’t see much difference. A cat has no more or less capacity for pain and suffering than a deer has (not to mention the sheep, pigs, cows, and chickens that are slaughtered each day for food). Arguably, the cat was in fact far more destructive than any deer — a deer may pillage your garden but it’s unlikely to drive strawberries or cabbages to extinction.

The DA told the jury in court that the defendant, Mr. Stevenson, “shot that animal in cold blood” and that the cat died a slow and painful death “gurgling on its own blood.” Isn’t that how deer die? What’s the difference?

One issue is whether the cat was feral. Although the cat lived under a toll bridge, she was fed and cared for by a toll collector. I guess that means that if I go into my local forest and feed the deer, I can then argue that they can’t be shot? I somehow doubt that that would go over wel.

It’s almost inconceivable to imagine a headline in the US that reads “Hunter Admits Killing Deer, but Was It Animal Cruelty?”

I’d have preferred if the cat had been trapped and moved, and it’s a shame the cat was killed, but I find myself almost defensive of the birder simply because of the contorted views that underlie his prosecution.

Comments are closed.