Cat policy

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
miniboes
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1575
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: Netherlands

Cat policy

Post by miniboes » Thu May 02, 2019 10:36 am

I know we have another topic about cats, but this is a quite different question.

We know that cats are the leading cause of bird mortality. Depending on the area, feral cats may be more or less of a factor than household cats. They may also disrupt ecosystems and spread diseases. On top of that, cats as pets consume meat, with all the problem that come with it.

What policies do you support when it comes to how we approach feral cats, and the legality of and restrictions on cat ownership?

Examples include:
- Use of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) as a strategy to humanely manage feral cat populations.
- Banning domestic cats from wandering outside, or only allowing it if they're wearing a bell collar.
- Imposing fees on buying cats rather than taking them from a shelter.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1984
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Thu May 02, 2019 11:09 am

miniboes wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 10:36 am
What policies do you support when it comes to how we approach feral cats, and the legality of and restrictions on cat ownership?

Examples include:
- Use of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) as a strategy to humanely manage feral cat populations.
- Banning domestic cats from wandering outside, or only allowing it if they're wearing a bell collar.
- Imposing fees on buying cats rather than taking them from a shelter.
I would also make it illegal to sell/purchase cats as well as making intentional breeding illegal.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9399
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu May 02, 2019 2:23 pm

Require registration and neutering/spaying of all pet adoptions. Ban sale and breeding. TNR or adoption for ferals.

Requiring collars is a problem because cats can get them caught and hang themselves. Microchips should be required, and otherwise prohibit owned cats from running free outside. If they're found the chip will reveal the owner and there could be a fine.

All adopted cats should be leash trained for walks. Owners should be made aware that NOT regularly walking a cat is animal abuse unless they have a large house with a lot of engagement, a cat run, or something along those lines.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:07 pm

Requiring cats to remain indoors is problematic, I regularly walked ours, but it seemed to make him redouble his efforts to escape and roam free.
Of course he is a true rescue (found in a parking lot at about 5 weeks old), so that may play into his proclivity for nature.
Spay and neuter seems best.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by BrianBlackwell » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am

I don't see how anyone concerned with the rights of animals could wholly ignore the rights of humans. Writing legislation is never the solution to any problem. It's an assertion that one person may have valid authority over another, such that the former may make commands which the latter must obey under threat of violence. It's a claim to ownership over the individual no different than taking milk from a cow is a claim to ownership over that cow. A claim to ownership over another person is called slavery. I don't support human slavery as a means to dissuade people people from owning cats.

Cats killing birds of their own free will is none of our concern - that's just the nature of cats. Supporting the breeding of cats by purchasing them as pets is another matter. We should not purchase carnivorous pets. We should educate people as to why this is the moral course. Once the money dries up, the number of cats will sort itself out naturally, and what the remaining cats do with birds are their own business.

In the meantime, taking in rescues is a grey area that I have no firm opinion about at this time; though I think it more appropriate to do so if the cat is made to find its own food rather than supporting the pet food industry in order to care for it.

As inconvenient as it may be, moral self-regulation is the only solution that actually solves. This means we must work to effect the moral uplift of society - a much more difficult task than merely threatening to beat people over the head with a stick. Education and direct defense against immoral aggression are your only moral options. Within that framework, do as thou wilt.

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1984
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:29 pm

BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't see how anyone concerned with the rights of animals could wholly ignore the rights of humans.
Very strange intro.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Writing legislation is never the solution to any problem.
If you want I can make a long list of legislation that has solved problems. I'll start my naming one: DUI laws to reduce traffic deaths.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't support human slavery as a means to dissuade people people from owning cats.
WTF???
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Cats killing birds of their own free will is none of our concern - that's just the nature of cats.


Can you think of any situation where the weak should be protected from the strong? What if I were to breed thousands of lion fish and let them loose in the nearest sea? Would it be ok for them to wreak havoc on the ecosystem since it is simply their nature?
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2943
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:45 pm

BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't see how anyone concerned with the rights of animals could wholly ignore the rights of humans.
Do you think that's how most vegans operate?

Hell, even if you only care about the well being of humans, you still have to care about animals; Animal agriculture contribute significantly to climate change (which will fuck humans the most, and is a major human rights issue). Not to mention how meat and other animal products are not fit for human consumption since we have healthier alternatives.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Writing legislation is never the solution to any problem.
I know this is your libertarian side speaking, but legislation, while never solves any problem 100%, plays a significant part in helping solve social issues, such as civil rights, ensuring healthcare, well being of workers and environment, or as @Jebus said lowering of DUI incidents. Sure, there are times where legislation has been used for bad things (sometimes acciedentally, since although the intentions are good, the idea never was tested enough, if at all), but being against legislation altogether as a mechanism for doing good things because of the bad laws is ridiculous.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
It's an assertion that one person may have valid authority over another, such that the former may make commands which the latter must obey under threat of violence.
What would you consider "valid authority"?
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
It's a claim to ownership over the individual no different than taking milk from a cow is a claim to ownership over that cow.
I think this is a false equivalence. As a consequentialist, I am concerned with what does the most good, not necessarily what is the most (or sounds the most) fair. Democratic Governments keeping society in line is good, while milking a cow is almost always bad.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
A claim to ownership over another person is called slavery.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to assert the government 'owns' the people.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't support human slavery as a means to dissuade people from owning cats.
It's not slavery, it's making the people not do something because it is harmful.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Cats killing birds of their own free will is none of our concern - that's just the nature of cats.
It's an issue that humans have caused when we brought cats to different countries after we domesticated them. Since we caused this ecological issue, I think we have to make up for it, because we're basically responsible for the extinction of many bird species. Cats are very skilled hunters, and will kill sometimes just for entertainment.

But even disregarding that, even if we didn't cause it and notice that it's a problem, it's still something we should be managing, like parasites, natural disasters, diseases, etc. I don't want to see this line of reasoning of yours to be applied to other areas.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Once the money dries up, the number of cats will sort itself out naturally, and what the remaining cats do with birds are their own business.
The cats won't just magically go away; they reproduce like crazy (gestation period of two months, about 3-5 cats per litter, and they mature within a year or so), and if we want to end this problem, the most humane and effective way is to spay and neuter them.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
As inconvenient as it may be, moral self-regulation is the only solution that actually solves.
I doubt this applies to cats.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:03 am

Spay/ neuter your pets.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by BrianBlackwell » Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:05 pm

Jebus wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:29 pm
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't see how anyone concerned with the rights of animals could wholly ignore the rights of humans.
Very strange intro.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Writing legislation is never the solution to any problem.
If you want I can make a long list of legislation that has solved problems. I'll start my naming one: DUI laws to reduce traffic deaths.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't support human slavery as a means to dissuade people people from owning cats.
WTF???
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Cats killing birds of their own free will is none of our concern - that's just the nature of cats.


Can you think of any situation where the weak should be protected from the strong? What if I were to breed thousands of lion fish and let them loose in the nearest sea? Would it be ok for them to wreak havoc on the ecosystem since it is simply their nature?
If you were to breed thousands of lion fish, that would be an action YOU are taking, which falls under human morality. Cats killing birds with no human intervention has no moral implications, but writing legislation which punishes people for victimless crimes (like simply bringing a cat into their home) is definitively immoral.

What a low standard we have for claiming a problem is "solved". DUI laws are a direct violation of human rights. I've driven over the limit innumerable times and am very responsible, never even coming close to harming anyone. Yet, any of those times I was subject to the violence of the state. This does not qualify as a solution. By the logic you've offered, why don't we just make all driving illegal? Think of how many lives that would save.

The work here is to thoroughly investigate the meaning of terms like "rights" and "slavery" until we have a deep enough understanding to discern them clearly.

BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by BrianBlackwell » Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:26 pm

Red wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:45 pm
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't see how anyone concerned with the rights of animals could wholly ignore the rights of humans.
Do you think that's how most vegans operate?

Hell, even if you only care about the well being of humans, you still have to care about animals; Animal agriculture contribute significantly to climate change (which will fuck humans the most, and is a major human rights issue). Not to mention how meat and other animal products are not fit for human consumption since we have healthier alternatives.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Writing legislation is never the solution to any problem.
I know this is your libertarian side speaking, but legislation, while never solves any problem 100%, plays a significant part in helping solve social issues, such as civil rights, ensuring healthcare, well being of workers and environment, or as @Jebus said lowering of DUI incidents. Sure, there are times where legislation has been used for bad things (sometimes acciedentally, since although the intentions are good, the idea never was tested enough, if at all), but being against legislation altogether as a mechanism for doing good things because of the bad laws is ridiculous.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
It's an assertion that one person may have valid authority over another, such that the former may make commands which the latter must obey under threat of violence.
What would you consider "valid authority"?
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
It's a claim to ownership over the individual no different than taking milk from a cow is a claim to ownership over that cow.
I think this is a false equivalence. As a consequentialist, I am concerned with what does the most good, not necessarily what is the most (or sounds the most) fair. Democratic Governments keeping society in line is good, while milking a cow is almost always bad.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
A claim to ownership over another person is called slavery.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to assert the government 'owns' the people.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't support human slavery as a means to dissuade people from owning cats.
It's not slavery, it's making the people not do something because it is harmful.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Cats killing birds of their own free will is none of our concern - that's just the nature of cats.
It's an issue that humans have caused when we brought cats to different countries after we domesticated them. Since we caused this ecological issue, I think we have to make up for it, because we're basically responsible for the extinction of many bird species. Cats are very skilled hunters, and will kill sometimes just for entertainment.

But even disregarding that, even if we didn't cause it and notice that it's a problem, it's still something we should be managing, like parasites, natural disasters, diseases, etc. I don't want to see this line of reasoning of yours to be applied to other areas.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Once the money dries up, the number of cats will sort itself out naturally, and what the remaining cats do with birds are their own business.
The cats won't just magically go away; they reproduce like crazy (gestation period of two months, about 3-5 cats per litter, and they mature within a year or so), and if we want to end this problem, the most humane and effective way is to spay and neuter them.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
As inconvenient as it may be, moral self-regulation is the only solution that actually solves.
I doubt this applies to cats.
When suggesting punitive legislation for victimless crimes, you are ignoring human rights, regardless of your concern for them in any other instance. Just as it is wrong to slaughter a cow for food because we don't own the cow, it is wrong to fine, cage, beat, or kill a human (outside of direct defense) for the same reason: because we don't own them.

What does it mean to own something? It means you have the supreme or exclusive right to dictate what is done with it, how it is used, etc. Government tells you that you cannot drive the car you purchased unless you get their permission. This is a claim to ownership over the car. The fact that their dictates are limited does not diminish this claim. If I lend you my car and say, "My only condition is that you don't drive it into XYZ neighborhood", have I diminished my claim to ownership by granting you a high degree of freedom in its usage?

Dictating what property you can own, or what victimless behaviors you can perform, is a claim to ownership over YOU. The fact that you may do as you please the other 91% of the time is irrelevant. At any moment, that may be reduced to 87% at the masters' discretion (complex political rituals notwithstanding), just as with any slave. African American slaves were typically free to pursue their own endeavors on Sundays and around the Christmas season - was the master's claim on them relinquished, or even diminished by this? Not at all.

You make a point about humans being responsible for the cats. But I am not personally responsible, and the people who are responsible are no longer here. So yes, it is wise for us to do something, but this does not justify violating the fundamental rights of the innocent. Your work is to convince people, not to use violence by proxy through government.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests