Setting the Record Straight: Anti-Cruelty Laws Protect All Cats

Wendy M. Anderson, Legal Director

On November 12th, the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society will go on trial for felony cruelty for intentionally shooting and killing a cat with a .22- caliber rifle. The Wall Street Journal reported that he admits he killed the cat, but claims “there’s no law against killing feral cats.” People Magazine reported that he defends his actions as necessary to protect piping plovers, an endangered species of bird that winters in Galveston.

Whether or not he’s guilty is for a Texas jury to decide. The trouble is, in the national media’s coverage of the case, little effort has been made to report on what the law really is. Let’s set the record straight: Intentionally killing a cat is a criminal offense in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Anti-cruelty laws apply to all cats—pet, abandoned, lost, and feral—and there is no such thing as a “piping plover defense.”

Anti-cruelty laws are among many types of laws designed to protect society from violent people. In fact, anti-cruelty laws, first enacted in the late 1800s, were established to protect animals from human violence, irrespective of ownership. These laws led to the creation of child abuse laws and then, in the 20th century, elder abuse laws. The common denominator in all of these laws is protection from a violent person. Scientific research now provides a nuanced understanding of the link between different types of violence. An aggressive individual who lashes out in response to conflict is a threat to society, whether the victim is a child, a spouse, or an animal. Intentionally shooting a cat is a violent act. That fact doesn’t change because the animal isn’t wearing a collar.

Like the laws against homicide, anti-cruelty laws excuse intentional killing in the rare cases when harm is imminent and serious, making lethal force necessary. Although anti-cruelty laws include other defenses, they do not recognize a bird-protection defense. Indeed, the piping plovers at issue in the Galveston case are already protected by federal laws, as are hundreds of other bird species. Those laws reflect decisions made by elected officials, informed by scientific evidence, on the best measures to protect and recover endangered species. In fact, scientific research shows that humans, not cats, are the overwhelming cause of declining bird populations. No individual is entitled to act contrary to the law simply because that person’s opinion differs from the collective judgment of the legislature.

Anti-cruelty laws protect all cats. That protection is not—and as a practical matter, cannot be—based on ownership status. We wouldn’t want such distinctions to be made anyway, because like many criminal laws, these laws exist to protect all of us from aggressive individuals. We are a nation of laws, not of violence. For this to hold true, we must remain vigilant against every act of violence, inflicted on any victim—even when the victim is a cat.