RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...) | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: BARANSKI (BARANSKI![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 12:15:41 -0500 (EST) |
RE: Rob Sandelin <robsan [at] microsoft.com> The state game person referenced three studies done, one of which was done not far from Sharingwood Cohousing which kept track of the annual kill of 3 free ranging cats. The total kill by 3 cats of songbirds and native rodents was really high, in the hundreds of animals. (They trained the cats to bring back their kills so they could count them). Assuming that the cats in the study were not 'belled', why would it not be sufficient to 'bell' them to prevent them from being effective predators? The whole issue of our pet policy restricitons is a matter of values. At Sharingwood, we value the local wildlifes right to live undisturbed more than we value the right of pet owners to allow their pets to roam free. There is not easy access to our property and because we are a farming area, free roaming dogs are typically shot by the neighbors in defence of their livestock so we don't get many dogs from the neighbors on our property. I can't quite make sense of this philosophy... You value the 'natural' 'wildlife' moreso then any 'pets' you might have. Yet... should some new animal decide to setup shop in your area, what would you do? If it was a dog, or other predator, would you kill it? What if you were overrun by rabbits? We have some raptors on our hill that I'm very happy to have around, and I wouldn't try to get rid or them... I guess it seems to me that the distinction between wild & 'pet' animals can be an artificial one; if you have a 'wild' dog or cat running around it must be killed or captured, whereas other animals' 'right' to be free is protected... I also live in a farming area; yet there are a lot of dogs that run around loose. Most of them quickly learn to stay on their own territory, and those caught chasing stock are shot, but some roam around yet stay out of trouble. I guess I just don't see dicotomize animals into wild/pet, good/bad, in the way you do... Jim.
- RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...), (continued)
- RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...) Rob Sandelin, March 5 1994
- RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...) Rob Sandelin, March 5 1994
- RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...) BARANSKI, March 7 1994
- RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...) BARANSKI, March 7 1994
- RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...) BARANSKI, March 8 1994
- RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...) Rob Sandelin, March 8 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.