Birder Admits Killing Cat,

[Brownian Motion]

The New York Times

Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

November 14, 2007

Birder Admits Killing Cat, but Was It Animal Cruelty?

By KATE MURPHY

GALVESTON, Tex., Nov. 13 — Jurors heard opening arguments on Tuesday in the trial of a bird-watching enthusiast who fatally shot a cat that he said was stalking endangered shorebirds.

The defendant, James M. Stevenson, is the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society and leads bird-watching tours on this Gulf Coast island 60 miles southeast of Houston. If convicted on animal cruelty charges in the shooting last November, he faces up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Mr. Stevenson, 54, does not deny using a .22-caliber rifle fitted with a scope to kill the cat, which lived under the San Luis Pass toll bridge, linking Galveston to the mainland. He also admits killing many other cats on his own property, where he operates a bed and breakfast for some of the estimated 500,000 birders who come to the island every year.

In her opening statement, Paige L. Santell, a Galveston County assistant district attorney, told the jury of eight women and four men that Mr. Stevenson “shot that animal in cold blood” and that the cat died a slow and painful death “gurgling on its own blood.”

She said that the cat had a name, Mama Cat, and that though the cat lived under a toll bridge, she was fed and cared for by a toll collector, John Newland. He is expected to testify.

Whether the cat was feral is the crucial point in this case. Mr. Stevenson was indicted under a state law that prohibited killing a cat “belonging to another.” Prompted by this case, the law was changed on Sept. 1 to include all cats, regardless of ownership.

Ms. Santell argued that because Mr. Newland had named, fed and given the cat bedding and toys, the cat belonged to him and was not feral.

Mr. Stevenson’s lawyer, Tad Nelson, admitted in his opening statement that his client went to the San Luis Pass toll bridge with “an intent to kill.” but that he had planned to kill a wild animal that was preying on endangered piping plovers. “This man has dedicated his whole life to birds,” Mr. Nelson said, pointing at Mr. Stevenson.

The case has prompted emotional commentary on the Internet. Cat enthusiast blogs have called Mr. Stevenson a “murderous fascist” and a “diabolical monster.” Birding blogs have defended his right to dispense with a “terrible menace” and have set up funds to help pay for his defense.

In an interview in a courthouse elevator during a break in the trial, Mr. Stevenson said heatedly that cat fanciers who have condemned him and sent him hateful correspondence “think birds are nothing but sticks.” “This is about wild species disappearing from your planet,” he said, adding, “I did what I had to do.”

Testimony followed from police officers and the veterinarian who performed the autopsy on Mama Cat, a white and gray tabby mix. The jurors were shown several photographs of the bloodied cat, reminiscent of an episode of “CSI: Miami.”

Pictures of the crime scene showed trays of cat food, blankets and cat toys hanging from strings under the bridge. The .22-caliber rifle Mr. Stevenson used to kill the cat along with his magazine full of Remington hollow-point bullets were also on display.

The prosecution and defense wrangled repeatedly about whether witnesses could accurately assess the cat’s state of mind.

“He’s not qualified to know what the cat was feeling,” said Mr. Nelson, when a police officer, John P. Bertolino Sr., testified that the cat was in terrible pain when he arrived at the crime scene. The cat died en route to a Humane Society facility.

The trial, which is expected to take a week, had few spectators save a handful of bird lovers and cat lovers who sat on opposite sides of the courtroom. One side nodded emphatically at Ms. Santell’s arguments, and the other nodded whenever Mr. Nelson objected.

“How people feel about the trial depends on who you talk to,” said Victor Lang, a local historian, adding that bird-watchers and cat fanciers obviously had the strongest views.

Though others may argue passionately about whether Mr. Stevenson should be punished, Mr. Lang said he did not have strong feelings about the case.

“But you see, I’m a dog person,” he said. “If he had shot a dog, then I’d be more upset.”

[robviti]

i like all animals. okay, maybe not cockroaches and mosquitoes, but they never want to cuddle. this guy criticizes "cat-lovers" as having little respect for birds, but it seems to me he's guilty of the same offense in terms of cats. what's more, he uses this logic to justify, and even take pride, in his actions. if convicted, he won't get the maximum penalty. i say convict the arrogant sob and sentence him to community service in a cat shelter (but watch him like a hawk).

[Jim Alfredson]

Dudes... it was a frickin' cat! There are literally MILLIONS of them. Go get another.

[Rob C]

Dudes... it was a frickin' cat! There are literally MILLIONS of them. Go get another.

There are literally BILLIONS of people, for that matter, so I don't know why people cry when their grandmas die.

[catesta]

Dudes... it was a frickin' cat! There are literally MILLIONS of them. Go get another.

Millions or not, the bird watching dickhead shouldn't be shooting them at his free will, especially in public places.

[MoGrubb]

...the cat died a slow and painful death “gurgling on its own blood.”

....

If true, and the birds are endangered species, then yes, it's animal cruelty for letting the cat suffer, for his not putting it out of its misery. It's probably legal to shoot the cat, but not for letting it suffer unneccessarily.

Edited November 15, 2007 by MoGrubb

[Jim Alfredson]

I see. Killing cats who are killing birds is a no-no, but killing squirrels is okay?

To make a law that says killing any cat, feral or not, is punishable by jail time is just ludicrous. What if the cat has rabies? What if it attacks your cat? What if it attacks your kid?

We're really edging towards total craziness in this society.

[MoGrubb]

I see. Killing cats who are killing birds is a no-no, but killing squirrels is okay?

To make a law that says killing any cat, feral or not, is punishable by jail time is just ludicrous. What if the cat has rabies? What if it attacks your cat? What if it attacks your kid?

We're really edging towards total craziness in this society.

If the squirrels ain't endangered and they're feeding on an endangered species then it'd be legal to shoot the squirrel, but not for letting the squirrel suffer unnecessarily.

Save the boids.

[Jazzmoose]

For crying out loud, Jim; calm down. Is there an epidemic of cats attacking kids that we haven't heard about? Go jump on a pit bull or something...

[catesta]

I see. Killing cats who are killing birds is a no-no, but killing squirrels is okay?

To make a law that says killing any cat, feral or not, is punishable by jail time is just ludicrous. What if the cat has rabies? What if it attacks your cat? What if it attacks your kid?

We're really edging towards total craziness in this society.

Okay, do away with the animal cruelty laws.

But what if the bullett went astray and struck a child in the head, still cool with you?

Cats eat birds, that is natural, all part of that food chain business. A squirrel trying to aggressively to enter a Manhattan apartment, no so natural.

I don't believe you would catch much heat from the law for killing an animal with rabies or in defense of yourself or child.

What this guy did, was it animal cruelty or not? That's all it comes down to.

[Jim Alfredson]

For crying out loud, Jim; calm down. Is there an epidemic of cats attacking kids that we haven't heard about? Go jump on a pit bull or something...

I'm calm, I just think it's ridiculous. I grew up on a farm. We had outdoor cats and indoor cats. The indoor cats were the beloved pets of the family and were well taken care of. With the outdoor cats it was understood that, although we loved them too, they might get hit by a car, freeze to death, catch rabies and have to be put down (happened a lot), or they might get into the neighboring farmer's chicken coup and he'd kill them. That's the way it goes.

Did the guy who claims to own the cat actually take care of it besides giving it some food and a couple of toys? Did it live in his home? Did he change it's litter box? Or was it basically an outdoor cat that he fed and enjoyed? To me, that's the distinction. If the cat is basically feral, then I don't see a problem with somebody killing it. If it was the guy's pet, then there is a problem. People shouldn't be allowed to kill another person's pet on a whim.

As for comparing the life of a cat to that of somebody's grandmother... c'mon. Let's get real.

[robviti]

an animal's worth is judged by whether or not a human has assumed ownership of it? it all boils down to property rights, not animal rights? that's why thousands of pet owners couldn't sue for more than "replacement value" when their animal companions were poisoned to death by pet food manufacturers.

as catesta pointed out, cats killing birds is a part of nature. cats aren't responsible for pushing these birds to the brink of extinction. maybe the cat-killer (he also admits killing many other cats on his own property) should start picking off people who ruin the environment for the birds. he's already got a defense on record: “This is about wild species disappearing from your planet,” he said, adding, “I did what I had to do.”

Edited November 15, 2007 by jazzshrink

[Daniel A]

cats killing birds is a part of nature.

As is humans killing anmals.

[Jim Alfredson]

an animal's worth is judged by whether or not a human has assumed ownership of it? it all boils down to property rights, not animal rights? that's why thousands of pet owners couldn't sue for more than "replacement value" when their animal companions were poisoned to death by pet food manufacturers.

as catesta pointed out, cats killing birds is a part of nature. cats aren't responsible for pushing these birds to the brink of extinction. maybe the cat-killer (he also admits killing many other cats on his own property) should start picking off people who ruin the environment for the birds. he's already got a defense on record: “This is about wild species disappearing from your planet,” he said, adding, “I did what I had to do.”

Like the grandmother post, this is comparing the value of a human life to that of an animal.

I understand that people can grow close to their pets. I've owned pets my entire life, but let's be realistic here. Are you really telling me that animals and human beings are on equal footing? If your daughter and your cat were both drowning, would you really have a hard time choosing which one to save first?

[couw]

Cats eat birds, that is natural, all part of that food chain business.

if cats would have to live on birds, there would not be so many cats

[catesta]

cats killing birds is a part of nature.

As is humans killing anmals.

True, but he didn't eat the cat and it was not attacking his livestock.

He shot the cat because he believed it was going to eat the bird. Even if we say, it's okay he killed cats on his own property this one was in a public place.

[catesta]

Cats eat birds, that is natural, all part of that food chain business.

if cats would have to live on birds, there would not be so many cats

Again this is true, but it is still a natural instinct of a cat to kill a bird.

[Jim Alfredson]

cats killing birds is a part of nature.

As is humans killing anmals.

True, but he didn't eat the cat and it was not attacking his livestock.

He shot the cat because he believed it was going to eat the bird. Even if we say, it's okay he killed cats on his own property this one was in a public place.

I agree with that.

[Dan Gould]

Here's something to consider: if the cat was killing an endangered species of bird, why didn't he get the Feds involved? Why take the law into his own hands? I'm sure the feds would have taken action to protect these birds, instead of him shooting the bird at long range and as Chris points out, taken the risk of hitting an unintended target.

Anyway, I find birders to engage in a really weird activity so I have even less sympathy for a vigilante birder. You can bet that he'd have shot the cat had he seen it killing a bird that isn't on the endangered species list, too.

[catesta]

cats killing birds is a part of nature.

As is humans killing anmals.

True, but he didn't eat the cat and it was not attacking his livestock.

He shot the cat because he believed it was going to eat the bird. Even if we say, it's okay he killed cats on his own property this one was in a public place.

I agree with that.

And that along with the fact he left the cat to suffer is why I believe the guy fucked up.

He won't do jail, but as the shrink suggested, he should pay a price.

[RDK]

Here's something to consider: if the cat was killing an endangered species of bird, why didn't he get the Feds involved? Why take the law into his own hands? I'm sure the feds would have taken action to protect these birds, instead of him shooting the bird at long range and as Chris points out, taken the risk of hitting an unintended target.

I dunno. Is it really any better to waterboard a cat?

[Jim Alfredson]

And that along with the fact he left the cat to suffer is why I believe the guy fucked up.

He won't do jail, but as the shrink suggested, he should pay a price.

I gotcha, but I think the law that was passed due to this case is ridiculous.

[RDK]

Are you really telling me that animals and human beings are on equal footing? If your daughter and your cat were both drowning, would you really have a hard time choosing which one to save first?

Jim, one of the sickest things I ever heard was when radio talk show host Dennis Prager did a segment on this very issue. I (nor he) could hardly believe it when he asked callers this very question - would you save your child or your pet? - and many of the callers had a hard time with the decision.

[robviti]

I understand that people can grow close to their pets. I've owned pets my entire life, but let's be realistic here. Are you really telling me that animals and human beings are on equal footing?

no, not equal footing, but i do believe that non-human animals have more rights than those that human animals bestow upon them.

Here's something to consider: if the cat was killing an endangered species of bird, why didn't he get the Feds involved?

maybe:

...where he operates a bed and breakfast for some of the estimated 500,000 birders who come to the island every year.

[Aggie87]

Here's something to consider: if the cat was killing an endangered species of bird, why didn't he get the Feds involved? Why take the law into his own hands? I'm sure the feds would have taken action to protect these birds, instead of him shooting the bird at long range and as Chris points out, taken the risk of hitting an unintended target.

I tend to agree with Dan's point as well. The dude should have called the authorities - taking a Charles Bronson vigilante stance is stupid, and shooting a cat in a public place like that is dangerous. What if a homeless person also happened to be sleeping under the bridge when he tried to shoot the cat?

Besides, how does he know that THAT particular cat was the guilty one? Was he witnessing it eat one of his beloved shore birds when he shot it? Or was it simply the first wild cat that he found in the area?