Feral cats

[buck460XVR]

I think the issue is that the laws are rather ambiguous, with no law or regulation specifically allowing for the taking of feral cats as a form of pest control.

I think for the most part, the laws for feral cats are ambiguous for a reason. They give the law enforcement agencies latitude to deal with on a case by case basis. They are given the chance to decide whether the neighbor killed the cat for a legitimate reason, or just because he could. Wisconsin did pass a bill in 2005 to make hunting feral cats legal. It got shot down because of bleeding hearts thinking it would lead to every cat outside without a leash or unattended off it's owner's property being shot(which by definition here....is feral). The next best thing is what we have. Basically a legal S.S.S.

I live on the outskirts of a small town of 10,000 people. I regularly see folks stop at the intersection down the road, open their car/truck door and throw out a cat or a coupla kittens. Many are naive and think they are being kind as opposed to putting the animals down. Next thing I know I see cat tracks and songbird feathers covering the ground beneath my bird feeders. They go from bird feeders, to cat feeders. I live trap them with a Havaheart baited with sardines. Problem is, the local shelter and local Vet clinics won't take them anymore, because they are already filled past capacity. They want me to pay $90 to have them neutered and then take them home..... or pay $90 to put them down. I do what I have to do. I then go home to see more tracks and feathers on the ground under the feeder and three or more grubby looking cats eating food put out by the neighbor that feels sorry for them. Who is the one being the most cruel here? Growing up as a kid in the 50s and 60s, we never had a problem with feral cats and stray dogs. Most of the time, the problem was quashed before it became a problem. Unwanted litters were taken care of, immediately, without fear of reprimand. Scurvy looking stray cats with matted eyes were gone before they had a chance to infect working barn cats. Nuttin' cruel or inhumane, just how it was and it worked. Letting animals live while sickly and allowing them to interbreed with other sickly animals and allow them to cruelly devastate other animal species for no reason other than their pleasure, is what is cruel. Watched a 'yote come up to the neighbors porch a few weeks back and pluck a stray cat off while it was feeding on some food put out from a bleeding heart. Kinda looked like the 'yote had done it before. I just had to smile thinking how the neighbor was inadvertently eliminating the problem while thinking she was being nice to the cats.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The only possible issue is the "any animal in subjugation or captivity" bit, however I doubt that means an animal must be trapped prior to being killed before it is considered animal cruelty.

Thank you for the citation.

Interestingly, that section jumped out at me to mean exactly what you doubt it means. It excludes animals not under your control..."wild animals."

I'm not a lawyer, but I was charged with enforcing the law and that is how I would have interpreted it

 

[primalmu]

I think that's why legalese is so difficult to interpret -- gotta keep the lawyers and politicians in a job somehow.

I hardly think that an animal is automatically considered "wild" if they are not somehow confined. By that logic, any dog seen running down the road would be fair game. While that may be reasonable for some of these stray dogs that form packs and attack livestock, it would be a shame for Rover that escape during a thunderstorm because his owners didn't mend their backyard fence.

Of course, this discussion doesn't apply to cases where life or property is in jeopardy.

 

[Bfh_auto]

I think that's why legalese is so difficult to interpret -- gotta keep the lawyers and politicians in a job somehow.

I hardly think that an animal is automatically considered "wild" if they are not somehow confined. By that logic, any dog seen running down the road would be fair game. While that may be reasonable for some of these stray dogs that form packs and attack livestock, it would be a shame for Rover that escape during a thunderstorm because his owners didn't mend their backyard fence.

Of course, this discussion doesn't apply to cases where life or property is in jeopardy.

Dogs are a different matter. People's pets come to the porch and want fed. Over the years I have had several stray dogs that have become my companion. Occasionally I am able to find their owners. I have only had to put down 3 of them. One tried attacking my neighbor. One killed my neighbor's goats. The last one tried killing my dog.

 

[Riomouse911]

About 5 years ago I tried to catch a raccoon that was thrashing my trash can, and instead the Havaheart caught a NASTY feral cat. Man, it was spitting fire when I walked up to the cage!

I called the pound, and they said they won't take them.

I didn't want to kill it, so I let it go.

I wish I would've killed it, the damn thing ate every lizard and every bird around. I'm guessing it finally moved on or croaked because it's been gone for a couple of years now and the lizard/bird population is returning.

 

[buck460XVR]

I hardly think that an animal is automatically considered "wild" if they are not somehow confined. By that logic, any dog seen running down the road would be fair game. While that may be reasonable for some of these stray dogs that form packs and attack livestock, it would be a shame for Rover that escape during a thunderstorm because his owners didn't mend their backyard fence.
.

"any cat outside without a leash and unattended off it's owner's property."

The above definition of a feral cat is what my local authorities use. Thus, if your neighbor's cat, even with a collar on it, is continuously using your kid's sandbox as it's little box, it is considered an unprotected species. In my state, an unprotected species can be harvested with no bag limits, possession limits, or seasons (meaning the season is open year-round). You are however, regulated as to legal firearm discharges in your area. Used to be a common practice around here to shoot any dog in the act of chasing deer. Nowadays, you can shoot your MIL and get less of a criminal charge against you as compared to shooting someone's dog.......even if he is running at large. Like you said tho, cases of life and property are different.

Dogs generally do not become really feral until they unite into a pack. Lone lost/abandoned dogs generally relate to humans and are easy to catch. Folks turning them in have less of a problem with them being euthanized than cats. For some reason, those same ladies that put out a dish of catfood everyday for the multiple stray cats in their backyard, call the dog catcher the first time they see one off a leash. The cats supposedly are cute and don't hurt anything, while the dogs are a threat. In most cases, just the opposite is true. Most of your stray dogs have had recent rabies and distemper shots. Most stray cats are the other way around. Most stray dogs don't proliferate readily and easily like most stray cats. They incidence of true feral dogs is almost non-existent in most areas of the country, while it's difficult at best, to go anywhere there isn't an abundance of feral cats. Most folks don't relate feral cats to feral dogs, because there is very little to relate to. Kinda like the difference between a cow and a deer. Kinda why most folks don't see any dog running down the road as fair game.

 

[cheygriz]

Wyoming law specifically permits, even encourages, the killing of any dog chasing game animals or harassing livestock.

It doesn't mention cats specifically, but game wardens and LE consider feral animals, any feral animal, to be a "varmint" and therefore not protected in any way.

Some folks here kill feral hogs because they are a destructive nuisance. What's the difference if it's a hog, a dog, or a cat?

 

[primalmu]

To be fair, animals are also considered personal property, so even if its not illegal to shoot a feral animal, if it is owned by someone you may be held liable for destruction of property.

 

[cheygriz]

To be fair, animals are also considered personal property, so even if its not illegal to shoot a feral animal, if it is owned by someone you may be held liable for destruction of property.

I can't speak for the east, but out here you would have an extremely difficult time convincing a judge that a "wild" animal was still someone's property. If you did, the injured party might sue the owner of the "wild" cat or dog for damage.

If you claim that "Rover" or "Kitty" is your property, then you are civilly liable for my sheep or songbirds that Rover or Kitty killed.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no alternative to the problem of feral animals other than to destroy them.

 

[9mmepiphany]

To be fair, animals are also considered personal property, so even if its not illegal to shoot a feral animal, if it is owned by someone you may be held liable for destruction of property.

Again this is mostly regional.

As I posted above, my state's courts have found that cats aren't property because they aren't "owned"

 

[Art Eatman]

What appears to be the pertinent part of Texas law:

"(2) “Animal” means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. The term does not include an uncaptured wild living creature or a livestock animal."

So, if you see Feral Feline in the back forty and you'd rather the quail were not in danger, do as you see fit.

Georgia: As near as I can interpret the language, feral cats and dogs would be considered pests and thus subject to control by a landowner.

 

[der Teufel]

In Texas, Penal Code Section 42.092(f)(1)(b) states:
It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful:
wildlife management, wildlife or depredation control, or shooting preserve practices as regulated by state and federal law.

Where I hunt, we operate under a wildlife management plan approved by the county. Part of that plan can include killing predators, specifically feral cats & dogs. We didn't check that box,, but we could. The biologist who helped us fill out the plan was agreeable to taking out anything the form listed. We checked off feral hogs and coyotes. Some of the other boxes we could have checked were raccoon, skunk, bobcat, mountain lion, rat snakes, feral cats & dogs. So far we haven't had problems with those, but we can always revise the plan as needed.

 

[JohnKSa]

Any person who shall willfully or maliciously overdrive, overload, torture, destroy or kill, or cruelly beat or injure, maim or mutilate, any animal in subjugation or captivity...

Subjugate: to bring under domination or control.
Captivity: the condition of being imprisoned or confined.

It is absolutely and incontrovertibly true that a free roaming feral animal is not under captivity. It is also quite a stretch to suggest that an animal that wandering free is 'under domination or control'.

Therefore, free roaming feral animals are neither in subjugation or captivity and the statute does not apply.

I hardly think that an animal is automatically considered "wild" if they are not somehow confined.

That is a true statement. The fact that an animal has escaped from confinement does not make it "wild". However, that's a SEPARATE issue from the one of whether killing it is considered animal cruelty. The statute you quote does not say that killing tame animals is animal cruelty, in fact it specifically states that the condition is whether or not the animal is "in subjugation or captivity, whether wild or tame...".

The operative concern is not whether the animal is wild or tame--the statute explicitly states that it is not. The factor that makes the difference is whether the animal is confined or otherwise under the domination and control of a human.

For instance, if one of my dogs breaks through my house window (yes, I have had patients who have done that) and starts roaming the neighborhood, if someone shoots him out in the middle of a field it would still be considered animal cruelty.

The idea that a dog that is roaming free is "in subjugation or captivity" is clearly not consistent with the definition of either 'subjugation' or 'captivity' and therefore the quoted statute is quite obviously inapplicable.

...it would be a shame for Rover that escape during a thunderstorm because his owners didn't mend their backyard fence

It would, indeed, be a shame. But it does not appear that it would be a crime.

...there may be legal implications for announcing in a public forum that you may be involved in illegal activities may not be the smartest thing in the world.

An absolutely true statement. However, there has been no information provided thus far that suggests killing feral animals that are roaming free is illegal.

The above definition of a feral cat is what my local authorities use. Thus, if your neighbor's cat, even with a collar on it, is continuously using your kid's sandbox as it's little box, it is considered an unprotected species.

That definition also appears to be consistent with the quoted statute from OK. The cat clearly isn't confined or under the control of a human while it is wandering free.

To be fair, animals are also considered personal property, so even if its not illegal to shoot a feral animal, if it is owned by someone you may be held liable for destruction of property.

There is that potential. A person who shoots a free-roaming pet or other domesticated animal owned by another could be found to be civilly liable for the damage to the owner's property (the animal) based on the circumstances of the case. I would think that if a person KNEW that the animal was a pet or owned by a person, especially if they knew who the owner was, AND if the animal was not damaging property or causing a nuisance or hazard, or if it could easily be controlled by means other than killing it, then there would be a strong case for civil liability. Obviously none of that applies to a feral animal.

Dogs are a different matter.

Not under the statute that was quoted, and not under the laws of my state.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Subjugate: to bring under domination or control.
Captivity: the condition of being imprisoned or confined.

It is absolutely and incontrovertibly true that a free roaming feral animal is not under captivity. It is also quite a stretch to suggest that an animal that wandering free is 'under domination or control'.

Therefore, free roaming feral animals are neither in subjugation or captivity and the statute does not apply.That is a true statement. The fact that an animal has escaped from confinement does not make it "wild". However, that's a SEPARATE issue from the one of whether killing it is considered animal cruelty. The statute you quote does not say that killing tame animals is animal cruelty, in fact it specifically states that the condition is whether or not the animal is "in subjugation or captivity, whether wild or tame...".

The operative concern is not whether the animal is wild or tame--the statute explicitly states that it is not. The factor that makes the difference is whether the animal is confined or otherwise under the domination and control of a human. The idea that a dog that is roaming free is "in subjugation or captivity" is clearly not consistent with the definition of either 'subjugation' or 'captivity' and therefore the quoted statute is quite obviously inapplicable.It would, indeed, be a shame. But it does not appear that it would be a crime.An absolutely true statement. However, there has been no information provided thus far that suggests killing feral animals that are roaming free is illegal.That definition also appears to be consistent with the quoted statute from OK. The cat clearly isn't confined or under the control of a human while it is wandering free.There is that potential. A person who shoots a free-roaming pet or other domesticated animal owned by another could be found to be civilly liable for the damage to the owner's property (the animal) based on the circumstances of the case. I would think that if a person KNEW that the animal was a pet or owned by a person, especially if they knew who the owner was, AND if the animal was not damaging property or causing a nuisance or hazard, or if it could easily be controlled by means other than killing it, then there would be a strong case for civil liability. Obviously none of that applies to a feral animal.Not under the statute that was quoted, and not under the laws of my state.

I meant they are a different matter as in the way they act.
Loose dogs are usually friendly and usually don't kill just to kill.
I didn't mean legally a different matter.

 

[Hookeye]

Just had my 16 yr old shelter cat put down.
She was a wonderful pet.
Got another shelter kitten, a sweety.
So we are back up to two shelter pets.
Mine have tags and collars and are fixed.
If they escape and somebody blasts them.........go get another one.
Would think it poor taste, if they shot one wearing a collar, that they hadn't seen before.
Mine are declawed so their bird/rabbit killing abilities are much reduced.
But I doubt somebody with a cheap scope entry level rifle is gonna be able to tell.

Stuff happens. Having raised show cats and adopted several shelter cats over the years, how many have gotten out?
One, for a month. Figured yotes got her. Nope, she came back, and never snuck out again LOL.

Neighbors are trash, don't take care of their critters. Nasty old tom cat.............cool dude, was my buddy. We fed him, he wouldn't mess with a rabbit, but was heck on squirrels (tried anyway). Odd cat.......more like a dog. Think a yote finally got him.

Oh well.

I hunted a place owned by a vet. People dumped cats there. Like he said, if it's 100 yards from the house it aint mine.
His had their territory, added cats being dumped, took up surrounding area.
And attracted coyotes.
Yotes ate all the strays, then nailed the lawdowners (one was snatched off the deck whil family watched from inside).

 

[Hookeye]

Another landowner..........we bowhunt deer on his place.
Nice quiet morning shattered by a shotgun blast from the house.
I texted my buddy and he replied w a LOL.
Owner must have blasted a cat.
Rule is every yote, fox, coon, cat and possum.........must be shot, or you can't hunt there.
Why?
I crossed the fence going to barn to my truck, weed strip on edge of field.
Musta been 40 quail in that covey.
All quail and pheasant are off limits, said he's had em wild there for 40 years.

 

[BigBlue 94]

In Kansas, any animal causing damage to your crops, livestock, or property can be shot. This includes game animals such as deer, furbearers, and non-native species such as feral cats and mountain lions. Cats here are considered "free spirits" and can be killed with little or no repercussions, unless it has a collar on.

We have a couple cats that wondered in, and are now pets, and both come up to get petted. But we have healthy coyote and fox populations too, that keep the feral cats at bay. We have badgers and Bobcats too.

 

[Dibbs]

"any animal in subjugation or captivity", IMO, the intent of this law is to prevent animal
exploitation, such as illegal cage fights between animals as illicit sport.

 

[Hookeye]

I hate the TNR folks, thinking catching a stray, fixing it, and then turning it loose.........."solves the problem".
Yup that tom might still be territorial and not able to breed.
Just means he's done making baby kitties, and he's still out to tear up wildlife.
Plus the same types of folks that dumped him, dump others. So if an area operates at capacity, any new ones just spill into surrounding areas..............read the density in one spot might hold with TNR.........but the overall problem persists and expands.
Maybe at lesser rate due to TNR...........but it still expands.

IMHO if you catch a feral cat you have two choices. Adopt it, or kill it. There is no turning it back loose.

Thankfully the coyotes in my area keep the strays in check.

My last 4 indoor cats have all been shelter cats, got as kittens. Wonderful pets.

A feral cat I put in same classification as coyote.
Not a pet, a wild animal, a darn destructive one (and not stupid).

Grandma had cats on her farm, mousers.
Never bought a cat.............they just showed up.
I dunno if gramps smoked any if they got past the creek.
Some pheasant around back then.........suspect he took care of biz and didn't tell grandma