Feral Cat Control.... Try S3

[h2ofwlr]

As for the cats, the coyotes sure have done a number on them in recent years. I just plain do not see near as many roaming cats out in the country. But I still do see them in the suburbs.

A hard winter like 2 years ago takes a heck of a toll on stray/feral cats too.

I remember I think it was spring of '97, someone I know found over100 dead cats in the spring time in an old abandoned small barn that had died of starvation.

Mother Nature is one cruel bitch as times.

[Quack]

Citizens can only legally shoot dogs if they are actually chasing deer from Jan 1 - April 14. I got curious because of this thread.

And... Gray squirrels are a helluvalot closer to native than red fox. The red fox issue is controversial, but many say red fox are not native to the USA, the Brits brought them over for sport.

[Fish Felon]

For whatever reason this got saved as a draft but was written prior to my last post....further signs that I'm losing it further than I already have.

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've always thought it was a stupid law. Whacko-guy that's devoted his life to stopping trapping on WIA's because a dog might accidentally get killed oddly enough doesn't care there's a law on the books that basically allows for the shooting of dogs anywhere.

2015 Minnesota Statutes

97B.011 DOGS PURSUING BIG GAME.
A person who observes a dog wounding, killing, or pursuing in a manner that endangers big game may kill the dog:
(1) at any time, if the person is a peace officer or conservation officer; or
(2) between January 1 and July 14, if the person is not a peace officer or conservation officer and the discharge of firearms is allowed.
The officer or person is not liable for damages for killing the dog.
History: 1986 c 386 art 2 s 3; 1994 c 575 s 1

[Mallard_maniac]

That simplifies, what I was looking for.... Thanks quack and FF.

[HnkrCrash]

Can shoot dogs if the are injuring or harassing livestock or poultry on ones own property. Also can shoot them whenever they are off leash if a rabies declaration has been made for an area.

Lots of 100% legal ways to roll Lassie. It's sickening that there is no provision for doing the same with cats, which arguably kill exponentially more animals/birds than dogs.

[Fish Felon]

Honest to God, what the phuck are you guys talking about?

Let me simplify reality for all of you:

It is absolutely 100% legal to shoot domestic cats in MN!!!

I was just kind of messing around with Dipfish at first (FYI his new nickname barely edged out my other choice for him of Goldshit) but it's clear that the Dipfish's of the world are taking over and that is a scary phucking thought. It's out of fear for society that I'm going to expose him for the giant phucking retard he is and set the record straight on this issue and hopefully this will be a lesson for him to not be judgmental and accuse others of breaking laws and talking it up online to get their jollies, because One---you have no idea what you're talking about Dipfish and frankly I think any person who would try to raise broad concerns over a law that doesn't exist amongst a group of people over something not even remotely based in reality needs their head examined and Two---Now listen here you little motherphucker, the only one getting their jollies by talking stuff up online and pathetically seeking acceptance and positive reinforcement is you and "the rest of us that try to follow the rules." You are a giant phucking retard and your degree of retardation is truly appalling. We all know you will read this and we all will be able to see you posting frequently on a different site that you're a moderator on so here is how it stands: You are officially admitting you're my bitch and a total coward until you can reply to this thread with whatever law it is you're blabbering about. You know, the law some 'animal nut got changed in Minneapolis and maybe even statewide' that was so important you felt that you should have stood up and grabbed the mic at the symposium to inform the rest of the crowd and the commissioner of the DNR why there should be huge concern over it? Yeah, that law. Post it up......bi-aatch.

Hmmmm, where to begin....

HnkrCrash, there's no similar provision to shoot cats because you can't have a provision to a law that doesn't exist.

The domestic cat is not a protected animal species in the state of MN. I literally posted a direct link to the entire list of laws that have the word "cat" in them in the state of MN. There's not many. You could read every one of them in less than ten minutes probably if it wasn't for having to click back and forth on the links.

Pet and Companion Animals are protected by law. A domestic cat can qualify as a pet or companion animal; meaning that it's someone's property. Just like all other property people don't have a right to destroy what is not theirs, unless they have just cause. I can't go and take a sledgehammer to someone's car or throw bricks through the windows of their house just because I feel like it. That would be illegal...since it is illegal to destroy the property of others. Shooting someone's pet or companion animal would be the same thing, I would be destroying their property.

That's it. That's the closest thing to a law that protects a domestic cat in the state of MN. There would be no legal argument for how a cat without a collar in a ditch a quarter mile or more from the nearest farm site would be someone's pet or companion animal. You are free to shoot it because domestic cats are not a protected animal species in the state of MN.

Neither are pythons. But just because they're not protected does it mean I can grab one out of an aquarium that someone happens to have as a pet while I'm at a cocktail party and chop it's phucking head off. That would be destruction of their property.


I got to run but I have more for later. Specifically, I'm going to inform everyone of the actual law Dipfish somehow misconstrued in his little brain as being something comically different. I mean, it really is absolutely phucking hilarious that this was somehow the basis for his delusions!

[Goldfish]

Look at me, I can type up a lot of words so that it looks important and I sound better.

Listen here nick, or Luke, or whatever you choose to go by these days. I'm not a moderator on any site. I got your "Alan Nikolai" user name removed from dhc by reporting it to the moderators because I knew it was you trying to pry your hands around his dick any way you could since you were told you couldn't be here.

As for the law, it was a city law, not state, and not Minneapolis I guess. My bad. But that cities rules now list them as unsocial stray cats, being a stray cat it is a cat which as you found and shown everyone is defined as a companion animal and as such, harming is a felony.

Thanks for clarifying what I was saying. But go ahead and keep helping the anti's, and then wonder what happens when those rules get pushed to your back yard and you get popped for shooting from a moving vehicle, at a companion animal, and god willing they don't have a computer for you to use in jail while Bubba is plows you so hard your asshole opens up enough that the shit can start flowing out it instead of coming out your mouth.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother with you tough guys on this site. I better go cry into my pillow

[HnkrCrash]

It may indeed be the case that there is no law specifically banning the dispatching of cats, then again maybe there is. I've never bothered to look.

My point was that there are also no laws, to my knowledge, giving me express permission to kill them as there are with dogs. We can both agree that dogs are a companion animal as well, except the law is very clear that I can kill them under specific circumstances...this same exception precedence doesn't hold true for cats. While the law may not say no, it also doesn't definitively say yes.

[Drunk_Dynasty]

Free roaming cats can be shot in mn at any time.

[Fish Felon]

Hahaha! Bravo Dipfish, that's the spirit!

I'll readily admit that I didn't think you had the stones to reply at all and that I'm impressed you did. Then again maybe this means you're a bigger 'tard than I thought since I have you dead to rights, and you're still a dumbshit that has absolutely no phucking clue what you're talking about but at least you're not a spineless coward. Maybe there's still hope for you yet. At least you got a little fight in you.

Technically you're still my bitch because you haven't posted up whatever law it is you've been yammerin' about. Isn't it funny that I'm still the only one on this thread discussing laws to cite actual laws? For a guy trying to follow the rules you're doing a piss poor job. You can't even cite the law you're still preaching about.

As for the law, it was a city law, not state, and not Minneapolis I guess. My bad. But that cities rules now list them as unsocial stray cats, being a stray cat it is a cat which as you found and shown everyone is defined as a companion animal and as such, harming is a felony.

My bad??? Yeah, no shyte. You're a dick. Lying about some fictional law you made up and trying to scare people into thinking a legal practice they might have engaged in is not only illegal but the charges for it have been upped to a felony is a giant dick move. After getting called out and not being able to produce any information about said law besides some city somewhere in the state enacted it at the urging of some unnamed animal nut you still keep up the bit, which is another total dick move.

This is one of those moments where you think the other guy is a dick but guess what? I'm not the dick, you're the dick. All I'm doing is stopping you from continuing to be a dick and I've done so by citing actual laws that support what I'm saying and then gone on to explain them. And yes, it takes a lot of words to illustrate the depths of your stupidity. That's not on me.

There are two ways you can end this. The first is you post the law you're claiming exists, as in the actual law and not more bullshyte backpedaling. The other is to just admit that you don't know what the phuck you're talking about. Choosing to do neither is just another total dick move in a long line of dick moves you've been making.



I like it when you type more....it increases the exceedingly retarded things you say. Like how you're claiming some city in MN made up a new legal definition for cats and made harming one a felony....

....this notion isn't just stupid it is impossible. Municipalities can't just pass whatever ordinance they want and make up new legal definitions and they sure as shit can't decide to adopt felony penalties for violation of said ordinance.

Federal>State>County>City

That is the order in which laws can't be superseded by the level of government below them. Cities are allowed to pass ordinances---that's what laws created by cities are called by the way---that typically focus on public health and safety. Depending on the size of the city the state will grant them different charters varying in their authority to pass ordinances in order to govern themselves.


Like most big cities the one you live in (Minneapolis) has it's government organized under a home rule charter, giving them more authority than cities with lesser charters. It still doesn't give them the authority to supersede state law.

One ordinance that received a lot of attention in recent years due to a 2013 amendment was Title 4 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 67. Managed Care of Feral Cats. For some reason a fair amount of idiots that don't know their head from their ass, like yourself, made somewhat of a stink about this amendment as a perceived animal rights takeover. I'm pretty certain that this is the basis for your fictional law rolling around in that cavernous area inside your skull where your brain should be.

Prior to this amendment it was illegal in Minneapolis to feed a stray cat and the city annually spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of their taxpayer's money trapping and euthanizing feral/stray cats. Now if you want to give some food and water to a stray that's been coming around you're not breaking the law. The city also endorsed a trap-neuter-spay program instead of euthanizing. It's important to note they "endorsed" it, they by no means passed a law that would stop them from killing a shitload of cats whenever they felt they needed to.

Dipfish, I'm going to paint the picture here so you might be able to put that information into context with the crap your saying,

Minneapolis, the largest and most liberal city in MN by a long shot, had a management program for feral cats that made it a crime for any citizen to feed one and they employed a team of people to kill cats. These people clocked into work on the city of Minneapolis payroll with the goal of killing as many cats as possible that day, and each and every other day after that. They killed cats by the thousands every year citywide.

That's how much the most liberal city in the state cared for their cats....by employing a team to kill as many of the little motherphuckers as possible.....that's the degree of protection the most liberal city gave them....to where it was a big deal when it's residents were legally allowed to throw a stray some scraps and not spending a lot of money to mass execute them.


Yet, you're telling me that in some city that's most likely far less liberal that you can't remember the name of....stray cats are protected to the point where it's a felony---a phucking felony---for harming one???

In addition to that this city can somehow just make up whatever laws and penalties it wants, effectively making it the most powerful legal body in the country with no checks or balances whatsoever. So it's hypothetically possible that in the future some guy serving hard time in the pen when asked what he's in for could be like,

"I was passing through [Dipfish, MN] one Tuesday afternoon and needed to stop for gas. While I was still at the pump a bunch of cops swarmed in and threw me to the ground and cuffed me. Apparently the city passed an ordinance that made it a felony to wear blue jeans on Tuesdays and there I was standing out in the open with my favorite pair of Levi's on so I was phucked before I even knew it."

I really can't wait for you to remember the name of this city. I want to learn more about it because it sounds like a fascinating place.