I was very interested to read Mr. Handfield’s article as to how the “study” showed the need for a cat control bylaw.
Not to dispute his figures (although he admits they could be out a tad), however I note his comment that “an intolerable toll on birds that are already suffering huge population declines from other threats, primarily loss of habitat”. A cat bylaw is not going to control that situation.
I’m all for groups that help in aiding the wildlife of all types. These are necessary groups. I would hope that these groups also include statistics from the devastation caused by poisons sprayed on lawns etc., that also affect birds and small creatures, which in turn affect the larger birds that do the clean up.
An example of this that I personally witnessed is as follows: Driving down 66th Street in Edmonton only to encounter a huge number of dead gophers and crows along the street, side of the street and in the field. What caused this? The need to develop yet another strip mall, and too much poison was used I guess, as there was an abundance of gopher and crow body evidence.
Let’s at least agree that cats are not the only culprits when it comes to birds and small wildlife being endangered.
I agree with Mr Handfield that an indoor cat lives a longer and safer life, no doubt about that. Cat runs and screened porches are wonderful safe havens for the feline as well as respecting the neighbour that may not appreciate the cat in their yard. People should definitely be considerate of their neighbours,
In respect to the bylaws across Canada, and having lived in a city which implemented such a bylaw and witnessing the ramifications of such a bylaw, I have to say I personally would not support such a bylaw.
I don’t see the study results printed in the June 10 article as being evidence of “the need” for such a bylaw. Instead I see a need for control of development, as Mr Handfield clearly notes that it is the loss of habitat that is the primary offender. Just my opinion.