Should we eradicate cats in Australia?

[think positive]

[David]

If you're an irresponsible pet owner and allow your pet to roam, you forfeit the right to keep it and it's destroyed. hate doesn't come into it, just pragmatism.

I think people might be justifiably riled by such dispassionate language (why say "destroyed" rather than "killed"?). Even the most diligent cat owner has probably had their feline escape once or twice; the idea that Mr Jones might be waiting with his shotgun next door for the first opportunity to kill it seems pretty barbaric and, yes, indicative of a certain hostility towards the species in question.

As a serious alternative, have we considered simply better funding for pounds / animal shelters so that more lost or inappropriately roaming domestic animals can be captured and returned to their owners (perhaps with a fine, if need be?) Seems a better option than treating cats like target practice.

[stui magpie]

^

I could say your post shows an emotive response as a cat person. Cuteness is irrelevant. "Destroy" is synonymous with putting an animal down.

If Mr Jones was sitting with his shotgun waiting for Mrs Kafoops cats to enter his yard, then Mr jones has a mental health problem and will have a legal one when he discharges a firearm in a built up area.

While desexed cats are allowed to roam, apart from the damage they do, the feral population grows and that's what needs to be stamped out. You can't remove the feral population while irresponsible cat owners are increasing it.

You want to give roaming domestic cats back to their owners? I'm OK with that provided they can first find them, second if the cat wasn't already de-sexed it's de-sexed prior to being returned and the owner pays the cost plus a serious fine. If it was already desexed and chipped, a smaller fine.

[K]

...
Then of course it's important to consider the amount of four legged animals killed each year in order to feed the dogs in this country.
Cats to of course.
So pet owners are already placing the well being of their animal over that of another animal that will be killed in order to feed it.
...

Again, the food chain and veganism are irrelevant to this discussion. (I do think that the vegan couple who put their cat on a vegan diet, with the very predictable result that the cat almost died, should have been charged for their foolishness.) Keeping any non-herbivore, including human babies, will make meat consumption necessary.

[K]

If you're an irresponsible pet owner and allow your pet to roam, you forfeit the right to keep it and it's destroyed. ...

I think people might be justifiably riled by such dispassionate language (why say "destroyed" rather than "killed"?). ...

Not only is council dog killing routinely described in the media with the word "destroyed", but the official laws are also written in terms of "destruction orders". It is, of course, outrageous that these laws are applied only to allegedly dangerous dogs and not to obviously dangerous cats (as far as I am aware).

[David]

[stui magpie]

^

While I'm quite happy for you to wage a personal war on euphemisms, I find it interesting that you want to use blunt basic language when it suits your agenda and more nuanced language other times.

[David]

[K]

I've looked a tad more at the legislation available online, and what I see tends to confirm the blatant discrimination against dogs. A document's about "cats and dogs", and suddenly it comes to "destruction orders" and it's exclusively about dogs.

[stui magpie]

[David]

[luvdids]

WTF has this thread become? From made up insults to discussions about the use of euphemisms, cat or dog lover dependant on political persuasion? This place is out of control.

[stui magpie]

^

You never had a conversation in a pub or bar that started on one topic and went off on multiple tangents?

It is called the Vic Park Tavern,

[HAL]

"the Vic Park Tavern wink" is a nice name.

[stui magpie]