Stop attacking the attacked

Isn't about time to get off the cat crusade? If you look at the facts, and the intent of the situation, there is no way a reasonable person could conclude that there is cause to continue to attack and accuse the people directly involved.

The animal involved was not a 'defenseless kitten' - it was a wild, vicious cat that had become a nuisance, then a threat. There were several attempts to trap it with a safe trap, but the cat was "street wise" and evaded the traps. The next step was to block escape routes & haze it out the door. It was during that attempt that the cat attacked a person causing wounds & gashes that required medical treatment. Two other people were bitten and clawed in the attempt to subdue the cat & protect the first person attacked. The animal was only "attacked" to keep it from wounding more people or wounding more severely. There was no initial intent to harm the cat. For the record—a different cat was removed from the building without incident or injury, using the same method.

There are several issues here, so it's hard to know which one to pursue….

1. The animal was taken to the proper authority, (Animal Control) to have it tested for rabies, because of the extreme nature of the attacked on a person. Instead of investigating the incident, it appears the agency involved decided instead, to make some headlines. Does any one know if the animal was rabid? How did the danger to human life get lost in all the words? Do we really need an agency (or perhaps the individual working there) more concerned about causing problems then solving them? How is your trust level for the agency & government/public agencies in the general since this incident? Talk about intent to damage!

2. Both local newspapers printed those headlines instigated by the Animal Control employee, again apparently without getting all the story. Was this simply a case of taking the word of someone who should have been credible, or is this another example of the news media manipulating opinion?

3. And then there is the agency that has been so critical of people "taking matters into their own hands"; the agency that is "always" available for assistance. Have you ever tried to reach that agency in the evening or weekend? Ever tried to call a truce with a bear or a mountain lion until sometime during the day Monday through Friday? The point is (lest someone misunderstood) no agency should be expected to have someone on call 24-7. Rational people should be able to make safety and protective decisions without calling first on the government agency.

4. Suppose the cat had been left to wander at will & had attacked a customer of the business? Just imagine the criticism - not to mention the lawsuit(s) against the business! Negligence! Public Endangerment! Etc., Ect., Etc.,

5. The person being most severely attacked is a behind-the-scenes benefactor to people in the community, giving the personal resources to help whenever possible. A truly in selfish individual, helping others out of a generous spirit, not for publicity. Does this describe a person likely to abuse animals? Where are the people pursuing that story?

6. The last I knew, there was no rabies test for live animals, short of watching until rabies developed, or not. As someone suggested, perhaps if the people had succeeded in capturing the cat and had used an instrument to extract its brain cells by suction, while it was still alive-perhaps that would have been acceptable. This IS the procedure to abort human babies, isn't it? (Oh! Excuse me! We are to call a human baby a fetuses, now aren't we? It make the procedure sound less disgusting!) If you want to get a bandwagon, how about that issue? Can you think of more something more defenseless then a unborn child?

This is the first time I have ever written a letter to the editor and am doing so for these reasons. First to tell the other side of the story from the majority of what is being published. Second, to see if it will be printed - because it tells the other side of the story. Third, to say "Shame on you!" to the people who criticized and attacked without knowing the facts and for putting the life of an animal above the safety of people.

Kay Mosher

Bigfork, MT