Hi Tweeters

I could scarcely believe my eyes at the post in which bird-killing by pet
cats was considered acceptable by their owner. I was going to write a long,
detailed rebuttal of some of the more egregious logical tricks this person
used to excuse her cats' predation. Then I read the sequel to that post and
saw clearly that it would be complete waste of energy. What I will say,
though, is that the second post is a masterpiece of rationalisation,
excusing, minimizing, and self-justification. It deserves to be reproduced
in its entirety in a textbook whose subject is the impact of human-owned
predatory pets on wildlife and its abetment by pet-owners, and should be
included in the chapter dealing with what conservationists are up against
when attempting to get pet owners to assume responsibility for the dreadful
carnage visited upon wildlife by their pets. The difficulty is that when
the lethal activities of their pets earn them the disapprobation of others,
pet owners tend to react emotionally first, rationally a distant second.
Approaching a pet owner on this level rationally is doomed to failure, as
the essential transaction between pet-owner and pet is a deeply emotional,
even visceral one. Essentially, doing so is getting between a doting parent
and a spoiled child. Good luck.

They have a large emotional investment in their pets, to the point that
their identification with their pets transforms those animals into
quasi-children, into 'family'. Once the 'logic' of this is in place, owners
institute a process of indulgence of behavior and appetite that they would
scarcely afford their *real* children, i.e.--would you allow your child
outside knowing that, like a cat, he or she will kill several birds and
other animals a week? Would you allow your child the same freedom afforded
dogs, to defecate in a public park used by other children and that both
child and parent walk away from cleaning up an unsightly and unsanitary
mess? What happens in a dog- or cat-owner's mind to allow such an absurd
state of being to occur? Rationalisation and self-justification are the
first two things which spring to mind.


These creatures are not human. Not being human, they are not family. They
are *animals*, for pete's sake. You buy them in stores. They are a luxury.
They are as much a necessity as a box of cognac-filled chocolates. So
someone goes into a store and buys a cat. What happens in that person's
mind that suddenly he or she feels that animal has a civic right to go out
and decimate the neighborhood's birds and other animals? And what happens
in that otherwise probably kind and thoughtful person's mind to make that
*acceptable* in a civilised community? That's the puzzle that always
bemuses me.

So what is to be done to protect our wildlife from such irresponsibility
and self-indulgence? Unfortunately, I can't see much to be done--no, I
don't think a rolled-up newspaper is the answer, no matter how good it
would make *me* feel to take out my frustrations after knowing that one
neighborhood cat from three doors down who moved in a year or so ago has
killed off all three wintering towhees, cleaned out all three robin broods
last summer and has singlehandedly turned juncos into an accidental bird at
my end of the block, unless it's to spread metaphorical newspapers on the
floor until the irresponsible pet-owners start using their heads to figure
it out, and stop allowing their pets the lethal indulgence of killing
wildlife, and to try to offer gentle, non-confrontational suggestions that
can lead to a more adult attitude regarding controlling their pets to help
save wildlife.

Because, left to themselves, irresponsible pet owners will figure it out
when, as the Irish charmingly put it, pigs fly and the dragons speak
French, and personally, I think there are enough people and governments
showing their contempt for wildlife: cat- and dog-owners don't really need
to join them. I think most are well-meaning people who just haven't thought
it all the way through.

Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
michael_price at mindlink.bc.ca