In many countries today, and even the USA in some states some years ago, 
indignant and mentally retarded people are forcibly rendered infertile, 
although I don't think that means they were neutered - but it might.

Just in case anyone is wondering this statement doesn't mean I recommend or 
approve of that.

...Bill!

--- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Joe,
> 
> The fact that some animals may get sick or have a bad time is NOT a reason to 
> kill them. If that was the criterion then any species including humans would 
> be fair game and should be killed...
> 
> If you don't want your cat to have contact with feral cats then keep it 
> inside - don't go out and trap and kill the feral cats. That's not fair...
> 
> What actually happens today is that feral cats are trapped and killed. They 
> are NOT neutered and released.
> 
> Edgar
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 7, 2012, at 9:49 PM, desert_woodworker wrote:
> 
> > Edgar,
> > 
> > You have a point.
> > 
> > But, you say "killing"? (I didn't).
> > 
> > I live in cities, and always have done.
> > 
> > Except when I lived for years in the Andes on the observatory mountain, 
> > among Puma.
> > 
> > In cities, feral cats are not in a state of nature, even here in the State 
> > of Arizona. They are dependent on humans, and this is why they are called 
> > domestic cats. There is a lot of pressure on them.
> > 
> > If they are dependent on humans, it is humans's responsibility to limit 
> > their numbers, so many do not die of starvation, nor undergo scourges of 
> > disease which cityscapes bring to feral animals.
> > 
> > "Kitty-AIDS" is rampant, and so is Hepatitis, among the ferals. The ferals 
> > sniff or scratch the noses of domestic cats, and infect the domestic cats.
> > 
> > So, there are reasons to interact, act, and react. Are these the reasons 
> > you were looking for?
> > 
> > Is feeding a feral cat "interfering with nature"?
> > 
> > No: it's interfering with a domestic-cat population.
> > 
> > Well, it is definitely interacting.
> > 
> > Even if we don't "interfere", we have no choice but to interact. Some folks 
> > interact as they feel is best for the animals and for the humans (in other 
> > words, for Nature). Neutering is one way people jump in to make a 
> > difference.
> > 
> > Not too fine a point on it, I don't think.
> > 
> > I would be against killing feral cats, unless they were rabid. I advocate 
> > neutering them so populations won't grow in town. Out of town, let them be, 
> > if they choose to live in the wild. Predation there will cull their growth. 
> > Coyotes here are real pet killers, and not timid to come into town along 
> > washes, arroyos, etc. I lost a 17-year old Tuxedo cat to a coyote in the 
> > middle of town: "Mikey". I see their lanky legs trotting in the morning 
> > twilight light here, a block or two from intersecting 5-lane major city 
> > thoroughfares.
> > 
> > --Joe
> > 
> > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Why in the world would you want to interfere with nature? Let them all be 
> > > I say. Why do humans insist on trapping and killing wild cats instead of 
> > > letting them live as part of nature?
> > 
> >
>




------------------------------------

Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to