As we reflect this week on the passing of Norman Mailer, I find myself thinking about his contemporary and acquaintance, playwright Arthur Miller, author of the acclaimed “Death of a Salesman.” I can’t help but think that if Miller, who died in 2005, had lived a bit longer, he might have written a new play entitled “Death of a Feline.” Like his previous work it would also have been a multi-layered play about apparently banal and normal events, which somehow take on an almost epic tone as they convey the prejudices, follies, and cruelties of the society they occur in.
We’ve moved from a cold, heartless society which could reflexively and accidentally grind a man into the dust to an overheated, mushy-hearted society which may systematically and deliberately grind a man into the dust for the unforgivable crime of acting like a human being. I can’t help but think that both Mailer and Miller would be all over this one.
Here are the facts, which no one disputes: James M. Stevenson, 54, founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society and famed bird enthusiast, used a .22-caliber rifle to kill, with full pre-meditation and with malice, Mama Cat, a feral cat living under a toll bridge. His reason: Mama Cat preyed upon piping plovers, endangered shorebirds, with the efficiency common to her breed. Mr. Stevenson, believing that the world is better with piping plovers than without, decided to eliminate a serious threat to their continued survival. And he did so.
And so, now Mr. Stevenson is on trial for the crime of animal cruelty, and could spend up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted.
In Texas. Where the state regularly executes morons without a qualm. In Texas, Mr. Stevenson faces serious jail time for shooting a cat to defend a bird. Mind you, this isn’t his first cat-killing, as he freely admits to killing numerous cats on his own property for similar crimes against avians.
In other words, he did exactly what human beings have done for at least 10,000 years: he killed an animal he didn’t like in defense of other animals he did like. He did no more, and no less, than what farmers, shepherds, hunters, and pet owners have done from the dawn of civilization. But, sadly for him, he did it in a civilization that no longer accepts such acts—even in its most individualistic and firearms-friendly area.
Now, it’d be one thing if Mr. Stevenson had killed a beloved pet which was simply wandering around on its own property. But, as far as he knew, he was killing a feral cat which preyed upon an endangered species. A cat which probably would have been put to death (humanely) in a shelter if it had been picked up by the very state which now tries Mr. Stevenson. The very state which extended the protection of law to the birds the cat sought to kill.
If a human had dared to do what Mama Cat did each and every day, he would have found himself prosecuted to the full extent of the law, facing probably even more jail time than Mr. Stevenson is now. Texas law and society would recognize that bird-killer as a menace whose willingness to finish off the piping plover justified their depriving him of liberty and, if he resisted arrest or attempted flight from prison, even his life.
Society reserves to itself the right to mete out justice to human beings, and rightly so. Rule of law and civilized society demand that I not be free to pursue my private vendetta against you. But Texas now seeks to extend that principle much further. Under its new animal cruelty laws, it would seem that the state now reserves to itself the right to defend animals, no longer allowing human beings to intervene freely in nature’s struggle.
So another human freedom, enshrined since the Dawn of Man, falls. And for what? To protect our ridiculously emotional and anthropocentric view of animal life. I own a cat, love it very much, and can understand just how painful it would be for my cat to be killed by another human being. But, as much as I love my cat, it is just a cat, and infinitely less valuable than any human person. If someone cruelly and needlessly shot down my cat, I would be angry, and seek justice. But if I, through my own carelessness, let my cat threaten endangered animals or the valuable property of another, shouldn’t those I’ve wronged be able to defend life or property against my cat?
Should my emotional attachment to my cat, or cats in general, be allowed to curtail the freedom of another to defend either their property or other species they value more than my cat? Once my cat leaves my property, aren’t my wishes secondary?
The Texas case has turned into a shouting match between cat-fanciers and bird-lovers. But there’s a much more important principle at stake: should the emotion of either side be allowed to dominate logic and reason? If a beloved cat is killed, it’s a tragedy, but it’s not a crime on par with murder, simple battery, or even assault.
It should not be treated as such.
November 14, 2007 at 1:17 pm
[…] Angry Overeducated Catholic wrote an interesting post today on Cruelty, Heroism, or Folly? The Death of a FelineHere’s a quick excerptIn other words, he did exactly what human beings have done for at least 10000 years: he killed an animal he didn’t like in defense of other animals he did like. He did no more, and no less, than what farmers, shepherds, hunters, and pet … […]
November 14, 2007 at 3:59 pm
The Honorable Mayor of Homer, a small town 20 miles to the east of Champaign, routinely euthanizes via .22 cal, feral felines. He applies the “Nice Kitty” test. Place a gloved hand over the cat’s head and say “Nice Kitty”. If the cat arches it’s back and rubs itself against your hand, then it get to go free. If it spits and claws, then it gets the .22 caliber round in the head. Somehow, I don’t think that a cat, however named, living under the overpass would pass the Nice Kitty test.
Last year in Champaign county there were 1800 dogs and cats euthanized, according to CatsNap. Many of these animals are the result of feral breeders or simply pets abandoned into the countryside. Rather than turn an unwanted animal over to the Humane Society where there is a chance of euthanasia (as well as adoption), they give it its “freedom”. As a consequence there are packs of rabid animals roaming the countryside.
Dogs and cats are bred over several thousands of years to be ‘domesticated’ animals which means that they live in what is essentially a symbiotic relationship with humans. Separated from the humans, these animals are ill equipped to survive and in fact are genetically predeposed to a variety of illnesses that cannot be managed in the wild.
Birds, having not been domesticated, are capable of independent existence. Genetics, domestication, pathology and common sense weighs in on the side of the birds.
November 14, 2007 at 4:24 pm
[…] Angry Overeducated Catholic wrote an interesting post today on Cruelty, Heroism, or Folly? The Death of a FelineHere’s a quick excerptNow, it’d be one thing if Mr. Stevenson had killed a beloved pet which was simply wandering around on its own property. But, as far as he knew, he was killing a feral cat which preyed upon an endangered species. A cat which probably … […]
November 14, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Yeah, the notion of 2 years in the pen for shooting a cat seems pretty amazingly excessive to me, though I would say that he was being a real @ if he shot it and left it to die slowly—that’s just wrong. Of course, having a rural upbringing, I KNOW that I have a much less sentimental view of animals than a lot of people I talk to do. Dad shot at least one suspicious (i.e., potentially hydrophobic) stray dog when we lived out in the backwoods and I can’t even count how much vermin got trapped after becoming an unwelcome guest in our house.
The “fluffy” lobby has really messed a lot of things up. For instance, behavioral research on dogs—not nasty stuff involving brain electrodes, smoking masks, or assorted other stuff of Faces of Death, but plain old “can Spot do this?” or “what does Spot know?” type stuff—has been driven out of the US by an unholy alliance of fanciers and uber-humane society types. This research (unlike an awful lot) is actually useful in that it concerns a nearly ubiquitous domestic animal on which billions of dollars are spent annually. Many dogs are put down because of behavioral problems so you’d think…. Sigh.
November 15, 2007 at 8:14 am
We should respect all living creatures. They have a right to life as we do. It is a shame that people do not care about the fact that these living creatures feel and hurt like we do.
If we are allowed to kill cats because they are killing birds then I should be allowed to kill dogs that are killing cats…same difference. Leave them alone and let nature take it’s course!
November 15, 2007 at 9:32 am
If we are allowed to kill cats because they are killing birds then I should be allowed to kill dogs that are killing cats…same difference. Leave them alone and let nature take it’s course!
Really? So you believe that you should not be allowed to shoot a feral dog or pack of dogs even if your cat is in danger? You should not be allowed to shoot an aggressive dog threatening your neighbor’s cat, or a cat you have come to feel affection for?
And certainly I hope you don’t believe that “all living creatures” have a “right to life as we do”? That is, that the right to life of other mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects is equal to the right to life of humans.
If you do, what possible moral grounds can you have for such a stance? Under what moral calculus is there no difference between the life of a termite and the life of a child? And why shouldn’t this calculus also include at least bacteria? Are antibiotics truly genocidal weapons of mass destruction?
Even assuming you were just using hyperbole and only believe that the lives of the higher mammals are equal in value to human life, what moral calculus guides this?
Your comment illustrates very well why emotions and sentimentality must not be allowed to determine law and morality.
November 15, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Kat wroge:
###If we are allowed to kill cats because they are killing birds then I should be allowed to kill dogs that are killing cats…same difference. Leave them alone and let nature take it’s course!###
When you’re talking about a feral animal that’s being fed by someone, nature ain’t “taking its course” anymore.
My mom’s cat (a stray brought into the house) used to slaughter the backyard wildlife for amusement (she is adequately fed; at age 18 she is now “retired” to the upstairs heating vent and has been for several years). That’s not “nature running its course” since kitty got to go inside and was facing no predation, got regular medical and dental, etc.
AOC wrote:
###Under what moral calculus is there no difference between the life of a termite and the life of a child? ###
How do you differentiate a termite and a child?
d(termite)/dx
d(child)/dx
Integration is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.
November 15, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Now this seems like some pretty serious stuff:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111502113.html?hpid=artslot
And of course, let us not forget Michael Vick:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701393.html
November 16, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Cats killing birds are not “nature taking it’s course.” Cats are a non-native predators brought here by humans long ago. Simply put, the birds it was stalking belong here, cats don’t. Of course, I feel sorry for the cat if it suffered, but native birds are suffering big-time by our ignorance.
How many birds can 60 million stray cats kill in a year? I have no cats, yet I have “eliminated” more than a dozen from my yard this year alone. Not to mention more than a dozen road killed cats in the same amount of time within a mile from my house. And I wonder “Why don’t I see Eastern Towhees anymore?”
What’s even sicker is while birding Texas in spring and seeing a beautiful Painted Bunting or Scarlet Tanager or other migrant bird sitting on the ground, unable to fly another foot after crossing the Gulf of Mexico and knowing how many of these exhausted birds are being killed by “non-native” cats.
This is an ecological disaster that needs to be taken care of. But some people seem to think that cats are more alive, or higher creatures, than birds. This is false! I used to feel that way, too, until I began watching and studying birds. I never knew the toll cats were taking on our “native” wildlife until then. It’s staggering and scary to think we may soon lose Piping Plovers, Kirtlands Warblers, Black-capped Vireos, etc.
Everybody should have to take some type of ecological course in school and study the local, native wildlife. With some education, they would understand the reason behind the shooting and know that he’s not a cat killer, but rather a defender and lover of native animals. Stevenson saved many lives by removing the “non-native” cat.
December 7, 2007 at 10:26 am
A long piece on the “Cat Killer.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/magazine/02cats-v–birds-t.html?pagewanted=all