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......Goldfish wrote: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.
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.
Goldfish wrote: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.