This may be a bit controversial, but please, hear me out. I think that while hunting feral cats is a good idea, I don't believe it will completely solve the problem. Trying to catch and neuter/spay cats on this scale has never been done and never will, despite the drivel these bunny-huggers would have you believe. I think a more concentrated and coordinated effort is required. Here's what I think we should do:
1. Allow feral cats to be declared uprotected species, and to be hunted with no restriction. Treat them, for hunting purposes, the same as WI treats coyotes.
2. Require the same licensing for cat hunting that now applies to coyotes (in-state - small game license; out-of-state - small game + furbearer licenses).
3. For two years, have the DNR provide a $5 bounty for each feral cat presented to a check station.
And here's where it gets interesting:
4. Require that all female, pet cats be licensed by the state. License costs will be set to cover the costs of licensing. This includes female cats owned previous to the passing of this law.
5. For a period of 5 years, place a quota on the number of licensed female cats in the state, and provide penalties for the possession of a non-licensed female cat.
6. Outlaw the wild release of any captured feral cats, regardless of sex or reproductive status.
7. Allow licensing of individuals and organizations that wish to capture feral cats. Require the euthanization of captured female feral cats for the first 5 years. Allow captured cats to be spayed or neutered, re-domesticated, licensed, and placed in adoptive homes.
These measures accomplish the following goals:
1. Reducing the number of feral cats in the wild through hunting, re-domestication, and more responsible pet ownership.
2. Increasing awareness of the harm caused by irresponsible pet ownership.
3. Reducing the number of songbirds and other protected species killed each year by feral cats.
The above measures, when added together, are an effective approach to regaining control of a problem that has already gotten out of hand. This approach is also a meaningful compromise that puts the well-meaning intentions of both sides of this dispute to good use while coming together to achieve the desired results. If both sides insist on merely cosmetic concessions to the other, like the pro- and anti-hunting forces have always done, this will be another issue that never gets resolved while deepening the rift between the sides.
Thoughts/comments?
Specialized