We had to kill a cat today.

[shakadaka]

Calico2222, I believe you did what the right thing, of course you did not want too do it, but you had no choice. From what you have said, I would most certainly have done the same thing. Those poor innocent kitties and the mommy's, you helped them immensly, by taking that cats life. It is unfortunate but sometimes we have to make a choice, and in this case the choice you made was the best one IMO, and after all, that stray will be , no doubt, running around at the bridge now, under supervision though hehe. Bless you for saving those precious babies and their mommys

 

[carolpetunia]

Well... there's no use debating the heaven issue with anyone who takes the Bible as literal and (despite its internal contradictions) infallible... so I'll bow out on this one. But it's a subject that fascinates me, and anyone who wants an open discussion on it is welcome to PM me!

 

[theimp98]

Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45

One comment re the Christian thing - no one "earns" their way into Heaven

i can agree with that.

Originally Posted by DaniMarie

But here's my big irking. Where in the bible does it say anything about cats?
As someone who has a lot of moral issues eating other animals, I've been told time and time again that the bible states God put animals on this planet for us to eat.

It kills me when "Christian" people talk about their cats going to heaven when clearly if ANYTHING, the bible completely contradicts this thought and says Heaven is a place solely for the devout humans.
.

Show me where it says they are not? It does not.
It does state that we are to take care of them, Does not say eat them all, or kill them all. the statment that comes to mind, is on earth as it is heaven. so why should there not be?

It may kill you, but the bottom line is you dont know. . Many people who have had a near death experice have talked of meeting loved ones, and animals.

Sorry but after years of having and living with many animals, there is no way anyone can convencie me that many of them dont have souls.

there where so many things said in this thread that are just wrong on the basic level. but anyway, that is not what this thread is about...

 

[muttigreemom]

I'll sidestep the religion, heaven and bible angle to this because I don't really see why that needs to be brought into this conversation in the first place.

But aside from that...

I am without a doubt an animal person. I would do whatever I needed to do to save an ailing animal. I even go so far as to buy cruelty free meats from local farmers so I know my dinner lived and died as humanely as possible. I am, as some consider me, a complete nut job when it comes to the well being of animals.

However...

In this specific situation, Calico2222 was in the position of weighing the wellbeing of many animals versus the life of a single animal. While I am not an advocate of shooting cats, I do see a quick and probably painless (do to the quickness of it) death as the lesser of two evils when compared to the long lasting painful injuries that cat inflicted on the other animals. This tom dislocated both of the back legs of another cat - that is a long lasting and painful injury, one which I can only hope that cat recovers from.

I can't help but get mental playbacks of Cityslickers in my head - the scene where Billy Crystal delivered Norman and Jack Palance shot the mother cow. His words: "She was suffering". Think of the actions of this cat - stalking baby goats, dislocating the back legs of another cat, attacking other cats. This does not sound like the normal behavior of your average cat - even a feral. This is over the top. I agree with whoever said that it sounds like rabies...because it does to me as well.. and in which case, he WAS suffering. And, much like Norman, Calico was able to save the other animals after the death of one.

Whether it was rabies or not, this cat was not well. Yes, she could have trapped him and taken him to a shelter to be put down. Why traumatize the cat in order to end up killing him anyway? And who knows how much more damage he would have done while she was waiting for him to be trapped?

If another animal were attacking your cat, would you not defend your cat? If someone were trying to hurt your family, would you not try to defend them? I don't see this as any different.

I never thought I'd be in a position to say this, but in this case I do believe shooting the cat was the best decision. For the tom's sake, I hope his death was quick and painless. I hope he is now happily playing over the bridge where he no longer has to suffer with whatever ailed him. And I hope your other cats and goats have a quick and healthy recovery.

 

[mickey14]

Don't feel too bad about it, when we lived out in the country we had to shoot two cats. One was a 4 month old kitten who had rabies, she would stand on the porch, foam at the mouth and try to attack our other cats, and the other was a kitten killer,(a dominate male) who was so mean we were afraid of him around the puppies and kittens cause he not just killed them but he did it violently.So sometimes you just have to do it.

 

[danimarie]

Originally Posted by theimp98

i can agree with that.



Show me where it says they are not? It does not.
It does state that we are to take care of them, Does not say eat them all, or kill them all. the statment that comes to mind, is on earth as it is heaven. so why should there not be?

It may kill you, but the bottom line is you dont know. . Many people who have had a near death experice have talked of meeting loved ones, and animals.

Sorry but after years of having and living with many animals, there is no way anyone can convencie me that many of them dont have souls.

there where so many things said in this thread that are just wrong on the basic level. but anyway, that is not what this thread is about...

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that animals have souls.... but what separates a cow's soul from a cat's soul???

It's funny how people pick and choose. You wouldn't eat your cat, so why would you eat cows or pigs, who are chromosomally just as close to human beings and certainly just as smart as cows and dogs? (the answer I *ALWAYS* get to this question when its brought up with people is the "god put them on this planet for us to consume" excuse)

I didn't want to get into a philosophical debate, the "christianity" topic was brought up and I spoke my mind.

I feel wholeheartedly that my cats are going to be there waiting for me when I leave this earth, but I think it's unfair to pick and choose which animals one believes possess a soul and which ones are just ripe for the picking and disregarded as living feeling beings.

Again, I'm not attacking and this is really not the place, but when the topic comes up, it's very difficult for me not to put my two cents in.

 

[kitytize]

Originally Posted by DaniMarie

But here's my big irking. Where in the bible does it say anything about cats?
As someone who has a lot of moral issues eating other animals, I've been told time and time again that the bible states God put animals on this planet for us to eat.

It kills me when "Christian" people talk about their cats going to heaven when clearly if ANYTHING, the bible completely contradicts this thought and says Heaven is a place solely for the devout humans.

As someone who reads the Bible everyday and in different versions I could argue this, but this is not what the thread is about.

To the original poster I do not think it was wrong to kill the cat that was causing considerable harm to other animals. I do not think I would of handle it that way, but I do not feel it was wrong. Everyone handles situations differently.

 

[goldenkitty45]

Instead of this being a small domestic cat that was attacking the other cats, etc.; what if it were a bobcat or fox or coon? Would it be any different to shoot that animal vs a domestic/ferel cat?

I don't think so. I'd want to protect my animals/pets too and if the same thing happened to us (when we were on the farm), DH would have gotten the 22 out and shot the cat.

I think she did no wrong in the decision.

 

[carolpetunia]

Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45

Instead of this being a small domestic cat that was attacking the other cats, etc.; what if it were a bobcat or fox or coon? Would it be any different to shoot that animal vs a domestic/ferel cat?

Of course it would! If it were a wild animal, it would only be doing what was normal for it to do. Trapping, neutering, testing for illness... none of that would make sense for a wild animal, whose life would still be spent hunting other animals.

Don't misunderstand me, though -- I don't like the idea of shooting a wild animal, either. Better to contact an organization that can trap or tranquilize and relocate it far away from inhabited areas. But if a domestic animal is under direct attack and must be protected, or if no rescue organization is available... I can understand the necessity in such a case.

The point some people are missing here is that there were alternatives. This was a domestic (or potentially so) cat behaving in an abnormally aggressive manner, possibly due to illness or failure to neuter. He may have been capable of living a perfectly normal life, doing no harm to anyone. That's the difference.