Bioethics Workshop
Iowa State University
May 23-27, 2005
WHO SHOT THE CAT?
THE LEGALIZATION OF THE HUNTING OF FERAL CATS IN WISCONSIN
Case Study: Group 3
Sehoya Cotner, Marjorie Fitch-Hilgenberg, Travis Idol,
Harvey James, Ravi Kanbur, Lita Rule, Clark Wolf
Objectives of the Case Study
Upon completing this case study, students will be able to:
(1) Develop critical thinking skills.
(2) Recognize what an ethical dilemma is and explain why it is an ethical dilemma.
(3) Identify who the relevant stakeholders are in ethically controversial cases and articulate good reasons to justify why the stakeholders have moral standing with respect to the issue.
(4) Recognize, understand and evaluate the diversity of values and/or interests that different stakeholder hold.
(5) Articulate a resolution to the ethical dilemma and give good reasons to justify the resolution.
The Issue
Should states pass legislation allowing for the hunting of free-roaming feral cats?
Why is this an important issue?
· The narrow question for Wisconsin, which had considered legislation changing the status of feral cats to allow hunting of them.
· It is a management issue that has been, and can be, considered by other states in relation not only to feral cats but also other wild animals.
· The broader issue of biodiversity, animal rights and their legal and moral status with respect to humans and other animals, rights of property owners affected by feral cats, as well as other issues.
Facts of the Case
On April 25, 2005, the Wisconsin Legislative Spotlight reported the following:
A majority of residents who attended county meetings of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress on April 11 voiced approval of hunting feral cats in Wisconsin. The proposal was approved in 51 counties. A total of 6,830 residents voted in favor of the proposal, and 5,201 opposed it. Implementation of the proposal would require approval by the Natural Resources Board. The legislature would also have an opportunity to object to changes to hunting regulations. No legislation on the topic has been introduced to date. The proposal has attracted national and worldwide attention.
A feral cat is a “domestic cat that has reverted to the un-domesticated state after being lost or abandoned, or a cat that has born outside to stray or abandoned cats.” Feral cats are to be contrasted from a stray cat that is a “domestic cat that has been abandoned or has strayed from home and become lost.” (www.austinferalcats.org, accessed May 25, 2005)
If cats can be identified with collars or other means, they are considered personal property and thus stray cats. Cats that cannot be identified as personal property or linked to an owner are considered feral cats.
In five years, one female cat plus her offspring can produce over 10,000 cats. This is based on an average of four kittens per litter and three litters per year.
It is estimated that there are more than 2 million feral cats in Wisconsin.
Studies in Wisconsin estimate that 47-139 million songbirds (robins, cardinals, blue jays, finches, etc) are killed each year by free-roaming feral cats. In addition, feral cats compete against other small mammal predators, such as weasels and raccoons.
At present, free-roaming feral cats are not designated as either protected or unprotected species in Wisconsin. Therefore, there is uncertainty with respect to how property owners and others who are impacted by feral cats can “deal” with the problem. If feral cats are designated as wild game, they could only be hunted when authorized by the government (through permits) and during specified “hunting” times (as with deer and pheasant hunting seasons). If feral cats are designated as a protected species, then they could not be hunted (as with the bald eagle). If feral cats are designated as an unprotected species, then they can be hunted without restriction (as with raccoons, opossums, moles).
In Wisconsin, the legal status of animals is determined by the Department of Natural Resources and the state legislature. The Conservation Congress is comprised of delegates from counties in Wisconsin. The Congress makes recommendations on natural resource issues to the Natural Resources Board of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The Congress provided the following information about feral cats (quoted in The Milwaukee Channel.com, accessed May 25, 2005):
Cats released into the outdoors by humans are exposed to feline leukemia virus, feline panleukopenai virus, feline infectious peritonitis, feline immunodeficiency virus and upper respiratory infections. … Unvaccinated cats can transmit these diseases to other native wildlife, including mountain lions, bobcats and the Florida panther. In addition, there is a potential public health concern that feral cats could potentially transmit diseases such as rabies, cat-scratch disease, toxoplasmosis, roundworms and hookworms to people.
Mark Smith, a La Crosse, Wisconsin, firefighter and landowner, introduced a proposal to the Conservation Congress to designate feral cats as an unprotected species. “I think it is wrong that these activists hold such power as they do. The politicians are all scared of them and lay down. I am one little guy who was looking to change something. It is not about animal cruelty, it is about individual landowner rights." (quoted in Robert Imrie, “Wisconsin Group Drops Cat-Killing Plan,” Associated Press, May 14, 2005).
The proposal before the Conservation Congress was as follows (from http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/congress/sh/cca/, accessed May 25, 2005):
Question 62 - Feral Cats
Studies have been done in Wisconsin concerning effects of free roaming feral domestic cats. These studies showed free roaming feral domestic cats killed millions of small mammals, song and game birds. Estimates range from a minimum of 47 million up to 139 million songbirds are killed each year. Free roaming feral domestic cats are not a native species in Wisconsin. The above mentioned cats do however kill native species therefore reducing native species.
At present free roaming feral domestic cats are not defined as a protected or unprotected species. Thus Wisconsin should move to define free roaming feral domestic cats, as any domestic type cat which is not under the owner's direct control, or whose owner has not placed a collar on such cat showing it to be their property. All such defined free roaming feral domestic cats shall be listed as an unprotected species. In so doing Wisconsin would be defining and listing free roaming feral domestic cats.
62. Do you favor the DNR taking steps to define free roaming feral domestic cats by the previously mentioned definition and to list free roaming domestic feral cats as an unprotected species?
Following the resident vote in April, in May 2005 delegates at the annual convention of the Conservation Congress met to decide whether to reclassify feral cats as an unprotected species. The Congress delegates voted 51 to 14 to approve a motion to reclassify feral cats, although the Executive Committee of the Conservation Congress elected not to make the formal recommendation to Wisconsin’s Natural Resources Board.
A “Feral Forum” is scheduled on June 25 to discuss the issue further.
The case has attracted national and international attention.
It should be noted that there are trends suggesting growing public support for the hunting of feral cats. For instance, South Dakota and Minnesota allow the hunting of feral cats. Also, the USDA has a program to support the lethal removal of feral cats and other wild animals from a wildlife refuge in Cape May, NJ.
Sample of groups that responded to the proposed legislation:
Mark Smith, firefighter, landowner and hunter who proposed the legislation
Jessica Forhman, spokesperson for Alley Cat Allies, who opposes the legislation
Wisconsin citizens, who voted in favor at county meetings
Karen Hale, director of the Madison Audubon Society, who thinks more discussion is needed
Other possible stakeholders:
American Veterinary Medical Association
Humane Society
World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife
Pet Owners
Cats and Wildlife (?)
Activities:
Module 1: As a class develop questions
a. Students will be provided background information on the case.
b. Students will identify questions and issues based on background information.
Module 2: As a class identify stakeholders
a. Ask class, Who are the stakeholders? List all possible stakeholders.
b. Have class tell who has moral standing.
c. Have students give reasons for why each stakeholder has moral standing. Have class explain how stakeholders might be affected by the legislation.
Module 3. In small groups develop arguments
a. Divide students into groups randomly and assign them to take the position of one stakeholder.
b. Provide groups information about their assigned stakeholder.
c. Have students develop a position statement with justifications as (for) their stakeholder.
d. Orally present position statement with factual and ethical justifications to class.
Module 4. Individually articulate resolution
a. Using the position statements from all stakeholders, assign students to draft a policy recommendation to the Conversation Congress, the Department of Natural Resources or other policy making group.
Additional information on feral cats can be found at
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/congress/cats
Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine, “On the Prowl,” http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/1996/dec96/cats.htm
Coleman, Temple and Craven, “Cats and Wildlife: A Conservation Dilemma,” http://wildlife.wisc.edu/extension/catfly3.htm
American Veterinary Medical Association, http://www.avma.org
Texas Parks & Wildlife, http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/research/cats_txwildlife.htm
Alley Cat Allies, http://www.alleycat.org
“Google” search for terms: feral cat hunt