As the author of the feral cat proposal that has recently caused an uproar among self-proclaimed cat lovers, I feel that there needs to be some clarification made on the subject.

First, I find it interesting that after giving only one interview, to one reporter from the Wisconsin State Journal, the media chose to feed on that story, to the point of sensationalizing and grossly distorting my proposal and views.
Never did I ask for or propose that Wisconsin consider a "cat hunting season." These are the words of others, not mine. Never did I ask for the right or say that I wanted to "shoot my neighbors' cats in my yard," as the lead "Bizarre Story" reported on Channel 8 News.

I often find Matt James' column in the La Crosse Tribune witty and amusing. I did not know, however, that Mr. James held some mystic insight into my definition of the word "dispatch." Had I known this, I may have used the word "euthanasia," as the Humane Society does to describe the countless number of animals they "dispatch" yearly, nationwide.

I have heard every excuse from cat lovers as to why cats run free. I fail to understand their excuses, when they claim to care so much for their animals. The cat lovers offer no solution to the feral cat problem; they only attack my character and make threats against me. My proposal makes no threats against any person or persons. Yet, the cat lovers have made threats to my job, co-workers and family.

The cat and animal lovers have stated they are "outraged" that I have made my proposal to the state concerning feral cats. I have not asked for nor have I taken any money from anyone and I did not spend any money to make my proposal. Organizations like The Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals receive millions of dollars yearly in donations from animal lovers. I hear no "outrage" from cat lovers that these organizations have done nothing about the feral cat issue.

The fact is I made a legitimate proposal to the Wisconsin Conservation Congress on an issue of statewide concern. Had the Conservation Congress felt it was not a legitimate proposal, they would not have brought it back from committee for a statewide vote. If you read my proposal, you'll see it changes nothing for responsible cat owners. It says nothing about taking anyone's pets from them, or about discharging firearms in the city.

The majority of the people opposing my proposal have admitted that there are feral or wild cats. With that being said, would not all wild cats be considered property of the state? Is this not the case with all other wild animals, game and non-game species? What I have requested of the state is simply to accept responsibility by identifying these cats and giving them a listing.

As for my proposal having an impact on farmers and rural landowners, I do not see how this applies. There are very few landowners I know these days who do not closely watch and/or control what other people do on their property. In that sense my proposal changes nothing for a farmer or any rural landowner who wishes to have deer, turkeys, squirrel, or for that matter, cats, on their property. It would, however, give a landowner who does wish to remove unwanted animals from his property more freedom and options for doing so.

I did not make my proposal concerning feral cats for the purpose of taking pets away from their owners. I made it to place control of feral cats where I feel it belongs and should have always been. That control does not belong with pet owners or animal activists, but with the state of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

When I made my proposal at the Wisconsin Conservation Congress hearing in April 2004, 52 other residents from La Crosse County voted in favor of the proposal. They obviously felt as I did that it was a legitimate proposal and worthy of a statewide vote. Even in light of all the "outrage" and "rhetoric" I still believe I have made a very sound and legitimate proposal.

More Opinion:

Advertisement