Feral Cat Control.... Try S3

[Fish Felon]

I don't know if this is just for Minneapolis, or if the animal nut got it changed for the whole state, I can't remember, but it's one of the two, there is no longer a such thing as a feral cat according to the law. They are all domestic cats, even if they are unowned. Add to that, there is s very hard push from animal rights people to get animal cruelty charges increased, including going up to felony. As you should know, felonies remove your right to own firearms.

I get the reason for concern and by no means should anything involving a cat involve a felony but......well, let me put it this way......

You're driving down a desolate road in the middle of nowhere and come over a hill to find a feral catch in one ditch and a wolf in the other.

Which one do you shoot first?


Don't make much ado over nothing. Pot is illegal too. Passing a law doesn't magically change most things. I love my cats. They're bad azz little killers. It's amazing how many sparrows (they've honestly never brought me a native bird) squirrels and mice they kill. I've had my older one bring me a sparrow in its mouth, drop it at my feet only to have it fly away, only to have my cat leap off the porch and catch it again several feet in mid-air and bring it back to me again. I've got some cool cats.

Which is why I shoot every feral cat I can when I'm out of the city. It's a cat in a ditch in the country...no amount of laws can protect it. If you came into my yard and started doing some weird sadistic shit to my cats....yeah, I'd probably either call the cops or beat your azz. Just use common sense and you'll be fine.

This coincides with what Landwhehr was saying that we need to get involved in the legal side a lot more.

Hahahaha I bet he's saying that!!!!


Clarification please: Legal side of what?

Is he asking us to protect the laws he randomly feels like making based off of his personal opinion and/or ethics or does he want us to protect the ones created by the professionals in his department he signs into law that are based off of sound management practices and upheld by consistent science and research?

Which one is it? It'd seem pretty hypocritical to take a stance defending both, now wouldn't it?

I bet he's urging sportsmen to get more involved in the legal side of things as he's staring down an impending legal battle once wolves are delisted by the feds and management is handed back to the states. He knows he's royally phucked after being inconsistent in how the department decides seasons after he used his authority to cater to his own emotions.

I can already hear him now when HFW just trounces him in court and to the general public,

"It's issues like this that illustrate how important it is for sportsmen to show up on the legal side of wildlife management. Sportsmen didn't show up and look at the result. Don't complain about the anti's getting their way if you're not going to show up blah blah blah blah blah."



Maybe instead of sending 8+ staffers to a series of statewide meetings to gingerly convince the angling public that a common sense change to pike management long overdue was indeed....common sense.....and why no one attended.....since most folks generally don't go to meetings to debate something everyone is in mutual agreement on, Landwhehr could allocate some of those precious man hours to having staffers brainstorm on ways to protect the department's decision making and management practices from a public increasingly comprised of non and anti-hunters so future generations can enjoy the outdoor sports?

Nevermind, not sure what I was thinking........that'd require foresight.

[Stute Slap]

Well said on cats - they are like miniature tigers, cool to watch them hunt.

[Goldfish]

[quote="Goldfish"]This coincides with what Landwhehr was saying that we need to get involved in the legal side a lot more.

Hahahaha I bet he's saying that!!!!


Clarification please: Legal side of what?[/quote]
Despite your reluctance to listen to anything he says, he didn't say "push for my rules". He said he knows as outdoorsmen that we'd rather not sit inside, listening to dribble about mind numbing statutes and all the other bull that goes along with legal debates but that it is just as important as any conservation work you do out in the field. Which it very much is.

Sure, you might feel like Johnny BadAss talking up having to pick if you're shooting a cat or a wolf, but the rest of us actually try to follow rules so it'd be in our best interest if we have voices in the discussions about what we can and can't do because the anti's sure as shot have people in there trying to nit pick every little ounce we have. I know that personally for a fact.

[Drunk_Dynasty]

Well said on cats - they are like miniature tigers, cool to watch them hunt.

Not as cool as watching them.....

Nvm

[Fish Felon]

Sure, you might feel like Johnny BadAss talking up having to pick if you're shooting a cat or a wolf, but the rest of us actually try to follow rules so it'd be in our best interest if we have voices in the discussions about what we can and can't do because the anti's sure as shot have people in there trying to nit pick every little ounce we have. I know that personally for a fact.

I don't disagree with that sentiment; there should be a better legislative update/effort/coordination amongst sportsmen. Swap out a law banning shooting feral cats with something gun related and there would have been a very different response and outcome. Animal rights issues will have to attain a degree of organization and seriousness as gun rights issues for sportsmen to have a chance, which is highly improbable.

The anti's are going to win on a lot of issues now and going forward. Especially issues that aren't economic or pubic safety related---like shooting cats. It's inevitable. It's only a matter of time. Society is going that direction and unfortunately we can't turn back the clock to yesteryear.

I've been shooting feral cats, skunks, possums, and various other vermin for decades. I can't say I've ever felt like a "BadAss" for shooting a cat in the ditch from the window of my vehicle. I've also never once done "S3" and would assume that anyone who would honestly use that term in reference to shooting a cat has never shot a cat....or anything else for that matter.

You know what greatly increases your odds of getting caught for shooting something you shouldn't have?

Standing next to it for the lengthy time it takes to dig a hole. Even if you shot a wolf on your own property why would you try to bury it? To clearly illustrate you knowingly broke the law and tried to cover it up and hide the evidence? Just leave it lay. In the odd chance an authority ever stumbles onto your land unless they witness the act they got nothing. If you're on public---everything is fair game! There is no accountability...just say it was someone else.

Even if shooting a feral cat was illegal I'd still do it. It's the right thing to do. If you'd let a feral cat walk up the ditch in the country unscathed just because some stupid law was passed then I guess you don't care very much about doing the right thing.


But we don't have to worry about any of that because I was just messing with you Goldfish---hence why I was laughing at Landwehr and pointing out his stupidity because it sounds like from your account he was talking about some animal rights law that doesn't even exist to rile support for his impending wolf legal battle. You're the real BadAss, talking about obeying laws that don't exist and worrying about the fate of society when you probably don't even know who your state reps are.


There was a push in MPLS in 2013 to change what was on the books so people would be allowed to feed feral cats (previously illegal) and neuter and spay instead of euthanize would be the focus of the city's programs; similar to what St. Paul already had on the books for the better part of a decade. Maybe that's what Landwehr was blabbing about. It has nothing to do with shooting a feral cat---since the laws governing the same area don't allow for discharging a firearm.

Other than that, if you actually decide to practice what you preach and learn the laws you're so concerned about you'll quickly realize the legal definition used is "PET AND COMPANION ANIMAL" which a feral cat is neither. The laws on the books are common sense rules stopping puppy-mill type places. I may shoot feral cats but I'm not cruel enough to not feed, water, provide shelter, adequate space, decent conditions, for something I call my pet.

There is absolutely no law in the state of MN that restricts you from shooting a feral cat.

The DNR commissioner is a moron.

[Fish Felon]

I don't know if this is just for Minneapolis, or if the animal nut got it changed for the whole state, I can't remember, but it's one of the two, there is no longer a such thing as a feral cat according to the law. They are all domestic cats, even if they are unowned.

You know you literally just said nothing. Not a goddamn thing even close to possibly being of substance. Do you have someone special you're getting these incoherent rumors from or are you fabricating them yourself?

Why don't you clarify the part about whatever it is you're talking about involving something involving cats possibly in MPLS or statewide that some animal nut worked to get changed? Any sliver of an actual event that took place or coherent shred of something that possibly happened would be appreciated.



Since you're "follow the law" guy please enlighten the legal slobs like myself....

....because to the best of my limited knowledge there has always been a pretty standard legal definition of "cat." Just like there has been a standard legal definition for "feral."

325F.79 DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of sections 325F.79 to 325F.792, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Animal" means a dog, wholly or in part of the species Canis familiaris, or a cat, wholly or in part of the species Felis domesticus.

The nerve of these animal rights nuts! Thinking they can change the definition of cat!? It's almost like they think the Latin word "domestic" is in it's taxonomy or something? They've gone too far.

Or maybe it's that Goldfish is speaking gibberish again and whatever change he's yammerin' about is fiction.

1.17 Sec. 2. [347.57] DEFINITIONS.
1.18 Subdivision 1. Terms. The definitions in this section apply to sections 347.57
1.19to 347.64.
1.20 Subd. 2. Animal. "Animal" means a dog or a cat.
1.21 Subd. 3. Board. "Board" means the Minnesota Board of Animal Health.
1.22 Subd. 4. Cat. "Cat" means a mammal that is wholly or in part of the species Felis
1.23domesticus. An adult cat is a cat 28 weeks of age or older. A kitten is a cat under 28
1.24weeks of age.

In bold is the only recent clarification/addition to the legal definition of cat in the state of MN. I'm sure some lawyer successfully argued that his client wasn't breaking the law and severely mistreating cats at their kitten-mill....

....because they were mistreating kittens.

Case closed.


Here's a link to serve as a starting point for you Goldfish to try to find this law you made up that shooting a feral cat is illegal. You do realize that laws are intended to not be abstract and they either exist or they don't? Despite what some intern staffer from the DNR said he heard from a buddy that heard it from his cousin. Since you're so astute and focused on following the laws, now you know how to look them up instead of make them up.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/topics/?type ... &year=2015

Add to that, there is s very hard push from animal rights people to get animal cruelty charges increased, including going up to felony. As you should know, felonies remove your right to own firearms.

Do I have to say it?

Please cite a source of some kind or a direction I can go to try to look this up for myself. I'm guessing it is complete and total bullshyte like the rest of your post but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



Do you know the origin for most of the "Animal Rights" laws we have on the books?

Farming.

As with many, many laws, maybe even the majority, their origin involves property. Animals are property. Property that can easily change possession and over time has often needed clarity on who is entitled to what and what rights the property owner has; property owner, not property [the animal]. That's it. Read the laws. They involve mainly livestock and other animals used in commerce (like dogs and cats sold as pets currently would be considered) and anything "animal rights" related is pretty much just common sense....like if you voluntarily choose to take possession or purchase property that is a living animal you should be required to do things like feed it and give it water and not keep it in a small box for weeks at a time in it's own shit where it doesn't have room to move. You know...crazy liberal bullshit like that.


Here's a link to one of Minnesota's many "Animal Rights" laws these crazy "nuts" that you're talking about keep pushing down our throats....

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... year=1940A

[Mallard_maniac]

or instance, if you observe a dog (domestic or feral) chasing a deer in this state, you can legally shoot them.

Only in the spring time tho (I think? ). Not during hunting season at least.

I think it is only during deep snow conditions and the dog/s have to be actively chasing in close pursuit of a deer.

I'm not entirely sure this is accurate. Don't quote me on this but I think you can shoot a dog in immediate pursuit of a deer any time of the year (some clarification by someone much more savvy than I with the state statute website would settle this fairly easily). That said I'd recommend using extreme caution. A good friend of our family popped a dog chasing a deer while sitting/hunting for deer under this law. He did the responsible thing (what he thought) and told the owner about it (animal was collared). Despite his insistence this law existed and he was exempt from ramifications, the owner took him to court and although our friend won, it cost him a fair amount in legal fees. Bottom line was, he was in the right by shooting the dog with the law the way it was, but the owner still was able to make his life miserable for a short amount of time.

It happened a number of years ago so the statute may have changed since then but at the time it was legal during hunting season

[Stute Slap]

I think I am getting soft - I honestly don't think I would pop a cat or a dog anymore. Maybe I just accepted I have an average size ween?

[Fish Felon]

I think I am getting soft - I honestly don't think I would pop a cat or a dog anymore. Maybe I just accepted I have an average size ween?

I've gotten softer too. I'd still shoot a cat that's clearly feral roaming up a ditch without a farmhouse in sight but I'm not going to go out of my way to do it (i.e. I better have a gun at the ready).

There was a time that I made an effort to kill any and every creature that could possibly predate on any game bird. I'd be willing to be late to my hunting spot or even to work if it meant an opportunity to snuff out some vermin. It was an obligation, my duty.

A buddy and I were on our way back to town after a really late juvie hunt for snows in ND, end of April, it might have even been May, and there's a fox sunning herself on top of an approach and her pups were playing in the ditch. She had made her den in an old small metal culvert that had mostly filled in over time with sediment. I know this because we made a u-turn and they all ran back into it as we got close. We took turns shooting a shotgun in the one end while the other sat "turkey hunting style" and each time we shot a pup would come out and we'd cantelope the back of their heads with a 12 gauge from a distance of only a few feet as they walked out facing the other direction not having any idea one of us was sitting on top of the approach at the edge of the culvert. We did this until we took out the entire litter. It took several more shots to finally get the bitch to come out and she was running...we botched it and weren't ready for her and she lived.

Thinking about those little fox pups all laying there in the ditch with most of their heads indistinguishable, just some skin and ears flapping on top of their little bodies, makes me sick to my stomach.

There's enough phucking ducks. I'll never shoot a fox again. They're such a beautiful native animal....they have a right to their place in this world too, they shouldn't be senselessly killed just because they might occasionally pull a hen off a nest.

[h2ofwlr]

or instance, if you observe a dog (domestic or feral) chasing a deer in this state, you can legally shoot them.

Only in the spring time tho (I think? ). Not during hunting season at least.

I think it is only during deep snow conditions and the dog/s have to be actively chasing in close pursuit of a deer.

I'm not entirely sure this is accurate. Don't quote me on this but I think you can shoot a dog in immediate pursuit of a deer any time of the year (some clarification by someone much more savvy than I with the state statute website would settle this fairly easily). That said I'd recommend using extreme caution.

I am sure it is accurate.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/02/2 ... hase-deer/

Now that being said, you can not shoot a dog because it is a stray.
http://www.southernminn.com/faribault_d ... 4359d.html
Or if some one else's dog is on your property
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 257AA6Suo3

And you as the dogs owner can be charged if it succeeds in taking down a deer
https://www.animallaw.info/article/tabl ... g-wildlife