tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post8971901182972300833..comments2024-03-18T21:02:33.523-05:00Comments on Althouse: Shoot the cat?Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50302749205410349022007-12-05T09:40:00.000-06:002007-12-05T09:40:00.000-06:00When it comes to cats and birds, the majority of t...<I>When it comes to cats and birds, the majority of the deaths are from habitat destruction, so let's not shoot the cats.</I><BR/><BR/>You aren't following what I've written. The cats should be removed from the habitat, but not by shooting. In populated areas, shooting is not a safe way to eliminate cats. Since piping plover nesting areas are easily disturbed by humans, it makes little sense to have people hunt cats in these areas. It's far smarter, safer, and effective to eliminate the source of the feral cats as the primary method for addressing the problem. So, yes to removing cats from the habitat, and no to shooting feral cats. Also, if we want to protect piping plovers, don't pretend that eliminating feral cats from the habitat has seriously addressed piping plover survival threats.<BR/><BR/><I>When it comes to Native Americans, the majority of deaths are from introduced diseases, so let's focus on the shooting by the colonials.</I><BR/><BR/>This is an odd statement. The first issue was whether or not there have been massive numbers of people killed by democide prior to the twentieth century. The answer is yes, and I gave examples. The second issue is whether the death of Native Americans between 1500 and 1900 constitutes democide. According the the man who defined the term democide, the answer is yes. <BR/><BR/>I don't understand why you think this corresponds to a "focus on the shooting by the colonials." I assumed you wanted a refined estimate of the number of non-disease related deaths. I cited Rummel's estimate in response. Some people are hard to please.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you see a consistency in your thinking?</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely. In the case of democide, I'm reporting the findings of people who have studied the subject. In the case of piping plovers, I'm reporting the findings of people who have studied the subject. Perfectly consistent.no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83725081609063057242007-12-05T09:19:00.000-06:002007-12-05T09:19:00.000-06:00I'm afraid your reasoning is wrong...In many cases...<I>I'm afraid your reasoning is wrong...In many cases, endangered "species pressure" on their surviving population has a variety of causes and all must be addressed.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't disagree that protecting endangered species requires consideration of all significant threats. However to argue that a minor threat to species survival is a critical threat while not bothering to address the primary threat is foolish. <BR/><BR/>It's clear you didn't understand my objection to Rolston's analysis. Rolston argues that there is a trade-off between feral cats and piping plovers. In fact that is a false choice. There isn't evidence that piping plovers are endangered <I>because</I> of feral cats, and there isn't evidence that piping plovers will not be endangered if feral cats are removed from the habitat. False dilemma, plain and simple.<BR/><BR/><I>Simply saying it is "wrong" to stop hunting because "DDT was more significant" misses the point.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a very poor analogy. I don't think anyone here has argued that feral cats shouldn't be removed from the habitat in one way or another. Your analogy also misses the point of Rolston's argument. Applying Rolston's reasoning to your example would result in the claim that there is a trade-off between hunting eagles and the existence of eagles. So if you apply his reasoning, the existence of eagles would have been assured if hunting had been banned but DDT use continued. In this context can you understand why that logic is faulty?no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59523295304606500542007-12-05T09:13:00.000-06:002007-12-05T09:13:00.000-06:00...and let me add:When it comes to cats and birds,......and let me add:<BR/><BR/>When it comes to cats and birds, the majority of the deaths are from habitat destruction, so let's not shoot the cats.<BR/><BR/>When it comes to Native Americans, the majority of deaths are from introduced diseases, so let's focus on the shooting by the colonials.<BR/><BR/>Do you see a consistency in your thinking?MadisonManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212179466758420208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60482047203510009222007-12-05T09:07:00.000-06:002007-12-05T09:07:00.000-06:00The fact that most Native Americans died from intr...<I>The fact that most Native Americans died from introduced diseases seems to have been a "convenient" result for the colonial powers.</I><BR/><BR/>A gift from God.MadisonManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212179466758420208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71954992450060777542007-12-05T09:00:00.000-06:002007-12-05T09:00:00.000-06:00Yes, it's too bad they weren't immune to introduce...<I>Yes, it's too bad they weren't immune to introduced diseases. I wonder, though, if you can really blame the Europeans for that and call it a democide -- since they had little idea how the diseases spread. Democide to me (it's a stupid word I think) has always implied an edict to kill. There may have been one -- but the majority of deaths were disease.</I><BR/><BR/>R.J. Rummel, creator of the word democide, estimates that although most native Americans died because of diseases spread by Europeans, "over the centuries of European colonization about 2 million to 15 million American indigenous people were killed by European settlers (i.e., victims of democide).<BR/><BR/>It's difficult to argue the position that European settlers didn't intend to kill Native Americans. The fact that most Native Americans died from introduced diseases seems to have been a "convenient" result for the colonial powers.no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52025384722586860232007-12-05T07:46:00.000-06:002007-12-05T07:46:00.000-06:00It overlooks the democide of between 13 and 20 mil...<I>It overlooks the democide of between 13 and 20 million Native Americans between 1500 and 1900.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it's too bad they weren't immune to introduced diseases. I wonder, though, if you can really blame the Europeans for that and call it a democide -- since they had little idea how the diseases spread. Democide to me (it's a stupid word I think) has always implied an edict to kill. There may have been one -- but the majority of deaths were disease.MadisonManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212179466758420208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7240124486145912007-12-04T22:25:00.000-06:002007-12-04T22:25:00.000-06:00they would either become pancakes or coyote snacks...<I>they would either become pancakes or coyote snacks</I><BR/>The first of our warehouse cats was named "Pancake" because he sniffs every vehicle that comes on the yard. He's been doing that nearly ten years without mishap. Most sociable cat I've ever met.<BR/>I've been trying to get my boss to have the newer feral cat fixed, but instead he feeds it. We gave away her first two litters, which pissed her off. The little slut's just had her fourth in the neighbor's cow shed, we think.Ralph Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07915708905660273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77078599382137627212007-12-04T21:16:00.000-06:002007-12-04T21:16:00.000-06:00Hmm. I asked my cat about this, and he was, of cou...Hmm. I asked my cat about this, and he was, of course horrified. He told me he kills only introduced species.Hattiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13297404386730167834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23695222688926182632007-12-04T21:10:00.000-06:002007-12-04T21:10:00.000-06:00No One - Professor Rolston reasons poorly. His arg...No One - <I>Professor Rolston reasons poorly. His argument rests on the fallacy of false dilemma. Although piping plovers are endangered, this is due to "habitat loss and human activity near nesting sites," not feral cats. Although feral cats are a problem, sensible and humane solutions to the problem are available. There is no reasonable ecological basis for individuals to shoot feral cats as they individually see fit.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm afraid your reasoning is wrong. You fall into the fallacy that matters like war with Iraq, highway accidents, or species becoming endangered only have one Grand Root cause - mistaken WMD, excessive speed, and habitat loss - and other reasons or actions, like defying UN resolutions, highway drinking, or cats eating up endangered species must be ignored because it doesn't fit your "single cause" way of thinking.<BR/><BR/>In many cases, endangered "species pressure" on their surviving population has a variety of causes and all must be addressed.<BR/><BR/>The bald eagle was endangered in the lower 48 by DDT, hunting for it's feathers, habitat loss, nesting sites disturbed.<BR/><BR/>Simply saying it is "wrong" to stop hunting because "DDT was more significant" misses the point.<BR/><BR/>***************<BR/>Animal lovers have an additional emotional mindset that excludes any solution to "cute 'n cuddly" pests like goats infesting islands off California wiping out endangered species habitats, cute Aussie bunny rabbits wiping out the Outback, big eye-seals wiping out threatened steelhead trout runs in Oregon, deer-as-Lyme disease-spreading vermin in many suburbs, feral cats, plagues of rabid, but so sweet-looking raccoons...<BR/><BR/>Of course they don't bleed their hearts out for problem species that aren't so cute - like feral hogs, rats, cockroaches, and cane toads.<BR/><BR/>*****************<BR/>Jeff - <I> If we stipulated that some sort of game warden was hired to shoot the cats, would that remove your objection to it?</I><BR/><BR/>Problem is in every community where it is argued that only agents of the state have the moral authority to kill surplus animal populations because it is a job, not a sport, and all the edible meat(mainly venison) is given only for the "homeless" to eat - in community after community, you have animal lovers attempting and mainly succeeding with their emotionally-driven bottomless pockets for lawyers - to block the owners of bird sanctuaries, farms - from protecting their property.<BR/><BR/>And there is something sick in saying that the sport of hunting should be abandoned along with the hunter's strong committment to habitat preservation so all the agents of the state harvest goes to "connected people" (venison a plenty for state cops, local officials, fish & wildlife employees) as well as the "homeless".<BR/><BR/>Akin to saying if there was a lobster population boom threatening crab and shellfish populations - that only state employees could be permitted to catch lobsters since they "wouldn't enjoy it" and lobsters would only be fed to "the homeless" (and stock the fridges of cops, local officials, and wildlife workers).<BR/><BR/>Quite stupid, and quite common a way of thinking on the East and West Coasts about dealing with varmint animals while sneering at evil hunters that Disney showed them were all bad...and help the beloved "homeless". <BR/><BR/>I am reminded that a wag said that discovery of a huge stockpile of 60 year old Jack Daniels in Kentucky this year - that it should be donated to "the homeless" like deer venison is. Because it would be "wrong" to sell luxury goods like aged Jack Daniels or venison to people that would pay premium amounts for it and add state revenue, and ordinary people would "enjoy getting the Jack Daniels reserve themselves too much to allow it".Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66002597192875920262007-12-04T19:24:00.000-06:002007-12-04T19:24:00.000-06:00Sally: Where did you come from? The Cat: Hmm, How ...Sally: Where did you come from? <BR/>The Cat: Hmm, How do I put this... When a mommy cat and a daddy cat love each other very much, they decide to... <BR/>Conrad: No, no, no, no, no. Where did you *come* from? <BR/>The Cat: My place, what do you think? <BR/>Dick Cheney: What are you doing here? Did Mary and Heather hire you as the babysitter?<BR/>The Cat: You pay a woman to sit on babies? That's disgusting... I do it for nothing.<BR/>Dick Cheney: (pulls out a pistol) Blamm! Blamm!. (shoots the cat in the hat) Dammit, do I have to do everything?<BR/>(The Cat in the Hat, 2003)Trooper Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978703998566102194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45647841085902219332007-12-04T18:26:00.000-06:002007-12-04T18:26:00.000-06:00What am I missing here?I don't know. I'm going to ...<I>What am I missing here?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know. I'm going to drop it because I don't want to antagonize the regulars. Maybe we can agree that ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder.no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18644247144249664282007-12-04T18:09:00.000-06:002007-12-04T18:09:00.000-06:00More, this was state-issued violence in the absenc...<I>More, this was state-issued violence in the absence of war, something that the world has little history of, at least in numbers like this, until now.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know what you mean by "now," but this isn't accurate. It overlooks the democide of between 13 and 20 million Native Americans between 1500 and 1900. It ignores the deaths of more than 16 million Africans as victims of the Atlantic slave trade. It disregards the depopulation of the Congo in the late 1800s. It forgets about the mass extermination in Persia by Mongol invaders which is estimated to have reduced the population from 2.5 million to 0.25 million (i.e., leaving only 10% of the population).no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18785539890398503252007-12-04T17:27:00.000-06:002007-12-04T17:27:00.000-06:00How does the fact that the main negative impact on...<I>How does the fact that the main negative impact on Piping Plovers is habitat destruction somehow mean that feral cat predation shouldn't be taken seriously?</I><BR/><BR/>I've said repeatedly that the feral cat population should be taken seriously. I don't think shooting feral cats in populated areas is a smart solution. I don't think it's an effective long term solution either. If we are going to try to solve the problem of feral cats, we need to start with enforcing responsible pet ownership. Otherwise we will continue to produce new generations of feral cats.<BR/><BR/><I>shouldn't secondary and tertiary threats be addressed?</I><BR/><BR/>Feral cats aren't the only piping plover predators. Crows, raccoons, skunks, and dogs (including pet dogs) are among other predators. Apparently many of these predators are drawn to nesting areas by trash left by beachgoers. <BR/><BR/>If piping plovers are worth protecting, we should take necessary and effective measures. Removing feral cats from the plover habitat should help at least a little if done intelligently, but it may not make a difference that will matter. That was my original point: the Stevenson case is not about a trade-off between feral cats and piping plovers. It's possible that we could remove all feral cats and still lose the piping plover. On the other hand, if plover habitat was sufficiently restored and nesting areas protected from human activity, plover numbers could increase in spite of the presence of feral cats. <BR/><BR/>Secondary and tertiary threats should be addressed, but assess honestly the impact of these threats and the costs and benefits of addressing them.no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88941362520259769142007-12-04T17:24:00.002-06:002007-12-04T17:24:00.002-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.KCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35675271686797573302007-12-04T17:24:00.001-06:002007-12-04T17:24:00.001-06:00I think you have to talk about that sort of thing ...<I>I think you have to talk about that sort of thing in percentage terms.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps, but then you have to take great care not to fall into agreement with Stalin that <I>The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.</I> This is especially true when considering that an entire people was very nearly exterminated, in Germany, Russia, China. More, this was state-issued violence in the absence of war, something that the world has little history of, at least in numbers like this, until now.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes big numbers are meaningful just because of their sheer size.<BR/>So there is something importantKCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4933629423378828392007-12-04T17:24:00.000-06:002007-12-04T17:24:00.000-06:00As if there are no other ways to remove the cats. ...<I>As if there are no other ways to remove the cats. As if, we tried as hard as we could, and it hurt our heads really bad we tried so hard, but we just couldn't outhink those feral cats. We just couldn't do it.</I><BR/><BR/>There's a basic point that's being missed here. These aren't *legally* feral cats. If they were, trapping and removing them would be an appropriate response. But these cats are "owned" by John Newland and the other low-grade Michael Vicks who keep feeding them.<BR/><BR/>And even in locations where, unlike Galveston, the cat-feeding weirdos don't have legal ownership, they still have enough clout to prevent any systematic solution.Silashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06619270385362208659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41021314486172465492007-12-04T17:14:00.000-06:002007-12-04T17:14:00.000-06:00"If we want to protect the piping plover, we may h..."If we want to protect the piping plover, we may have to restore lost habitat. Removing feral cats from the habitat may not save piping plover."<BR/><BR/>Yes, but that isn't going to happen in Galveston anymore than people are going to move out of Ohio for the deer. While it would accomplish the stated objective, it just isn't going to happen.<BR/><BR/>"I don't think shooting feral cats in populated areas is a smart long term solution."<BR/><BR/>Somewhere in that article it pointed out that where remove/fix/replace is tried, the population stabilizes and is more effected by attrition. So if historically it works and shooting doesn't then I go with what works. I just think the people wanting to outlaw it do it because it's a cat, and historically cute.jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01892213227811281098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-48395058859746553152007-12-04T17:08:00.000-06:002007-12-04T17:08:00.000-06:00"I can no longer apply the Gish Principle to these..."I can no longer apply the Gish Principle to these two commenters. They appear to believe the remarkably ridiculous things they write."<BR/><BR/>That would work better if you could demonstrate why their statements are ridiculous. I went back thru the comments I missed the extreme dumbness of what they said. Perhaps if you could explain why you disagree? It looks like on one topic someone mentioned the lady that had the abortion for mother earth. You asked for a cite, one was given. You then said she wouldn't have had an abortion if she had been sterilized and that it was a personal choice. I just skimmed, so if I have that wrong, let me know. <BR/>I think another was that if we go down the road to abortions for mother earth, it is a short step to culling the existing population. That seems to be a agree/disagree statement, but not a ridiculous one. <BR/>What am I missing here?jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01892213227811281098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88652806583834242072007-12-04T17:05:00.000-06:002007-12-04T17:05:00.000-06:00Jeff, your comments have been well reasoned. Howev...Jeff, your comments have been well reasoned. However, your last comment falls victim to the false dilemma fallacy. If we want to protect the piping plover, we may have to restore lost habitat. Removing feral cats from the habitat may not save piping plover. <BR/><BR/>If we care about preserving the piping plover, it's worthwhile exploring the distinction between what we need to do and what we are willing to do. But the immediate issue is feral cats in the plover habitat and what to do about them. <BR/><BR/>If we are honest about the threats to the plover, we are forced to admit that the survival of the plover does not depend on the shooting of feral cats. In fact, since hunting feral cats would probably involve disturbing plover nesting areas (since predators hunt in these areas), does hunting cats result in more harm than good?<BR/><BR/>For the record, I'm not making the argument that feral cats don't cause problems for plovers and other bird populations. Like you, I'm suggesting that the problem deserves a smart solution. I don't think shooting feral cats in populated areas is a smart long term solution.no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39794541916074848912007-12-04T17:04:00.000-06:002007-12-04T17:04:00.000-06:00I'm not convinced you are correct on that. But by ...<I>I'm not convinced you are correct on that. But by the sheer numbers, we killed the most in history.</I><BR/><BR/>He's right, actually. As bloody as the last century was, only around 2% of the population died by violence. The historical average for humanity, based on the best information we have, is well into double digits. Civilization lowers the murder rate, and as a species we are becoming progressively more civilized.<BR/><BR/>I think you have to talk about that sort of thing in percentage terms. If you don't then murder automatically becomes "worse" as the population grows, even if the murder RATE drops.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23908634834357774162007-12-04T16:51:00.000-06:002007-12-04T16:51:00.000-06:00How does the fact that the main negative impact on...How does the fact that the main negative impact on Piping Plovers is habitat destruction somehow mean that feral cat predation shouldn't be taken seriously? If habitat destruction is not a big problem in a place like, oh, a National Wildlife Refuge, shouldn't secondary and tertiary threats be addressed? Or do cats a free ride because they're not operating bulldozers or otherwise driving? (Well, <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA4djg6ILxU" REL="nofollow">most of them aren't!</A>)<BR/><BR/>Alas, I cannot read the relevant J. Wild. Mgmt. article on-line.MadisonManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212179466758420208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57773835009204149882007-12-04T16:50:00.000-06:002007-12-04T16:50:00.000-06:00Shoot or not?It depends on the local laws. I have ...<I>Shoot or not?</I><BR/><BR/>It depends on the local laws. I have no objection to the shooting (to kill) of a feral cat if it is done legally, safely and as humanely as possible.no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8944798236267297292007-12-04T16:46:00.001-06:002007-12-04T16:46:00.001-06:00Now you are just being willfully obtuse, rather th...<I>Now you are just being willfully obtuse, rather than accept the fact that you have been proven quite wrong.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Perhaps it would be if no environmentalists had done it first, and continued to do it pretty consistently from the time of Malthus.</I><BR/><BR/>I can no longer apply the Gish Principle to these two commenters. They appear to believe the remarkably ridiculous things they write.no onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502466466666705663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84135678337281518532007-12-04T16:46:00.000-06:002007-12-04T16:46:00.000-06:00Feral cats need to be eliminated as quickly and as...Feral cats need to be eliminated as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Shooting accomplishes this. <BR/><BR/>Any argument against this is simply simply based on liberal emotion.rcoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17102201338319611538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41937571141649728342007-12-04T16:42:00.000-06:002007-12-04T16:42:00.000-06:00""The most important limiting factor for Piping Pl...""The most important limiting factor for Piping Plovers melodus subspecies is loss of habitat, mostly caused by human use of beaches, and the consequent human disturbance around nesting sites."<BR/><BR/>And<BR/><BR/>"The main threat to the bird is habitat loss as coastal beaches are increasingly developed for residential, commercial and industrial uses."<BR/><BR/><BR/>So of the two things, removing feral cats and people tearing down their condos and moving away, which do you feel is more likely to happen? Hint: people not leaving. I don't think the argument of <BR/>"it's the humans who are actually moving into the habitat are the problem and it isn't fair to complain about the cats killing all the birds since there would be more birds if we didn't live here so the ones that cats killed wouldn't matter as much." is going to get you far.jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01892213227811281098noreply@blogger.com