Another high-profile cat-hater


And this one is being taken seriously by the Washington Post:

Please contact the Washington Post. I’m sure they have a Facebook page. I contacted them via @washingtonpost on Twitter. Please tell them why you know that Peter Marra is just plain wrong.


7 thoughts on “Another high-profile cat-hater

  1. I read the article and it just proves to me how far removed some people are from reality. Do these same people happen to eat animals (barbaric slaughter), buy cheap products from the Far East (child labour), fly around the world many times or drive “fat” cars (environmental issues),or are avid fans of all sorts of weaponry? The list could go on and on.
    It appears to me that some people do not like cats simply because a cat does what it wants to do; which is something most would love to do themselves but because of being “trapped” in their own lifestyles and because of being frightened of change they project their “sufferings” on little furry beings who cannot protect themselves against such “brave” humans. Nature has its own set of rules and the insignificant human being cannot change this fact.

    • Very well said and thank you for taking the time to comment. “Their” last-ditch argument is that the domesticated cat is a non-native species; thus, evil. I do not accept that argument. I believe it to be a red herring.

      • It´s difficult to believe that so many so-called “modern”, “civilised” people should live their lives in times of yesteryear. To deduce a normal household cat to a non-native species as being evil sounds very old-testament to my ears. Are these people liviing in the 21st Century? Many things are “non-native” to our countries but it doesn´t mean we have to eliminate everything that doesn´t have its roots in our cultures.

  2. You could also contact the writer directly and present her with some facts. Like, the bubonic plague in the Middle Ages was the result of rats on ships carrying fleas that infected them, and if they hadn’t been so busy eradicating cats (because of the supposed connection to witches) they would have had fewe rats. Also, Disneyworld is using feral/stray cats to keep down the rodent population there, rather than using poisons that could harm guests and the environment.

    After reading the short article, she doesn’t come across as all that sympathetic to the book’s authors. She calls the language “inflammatory” and criticizes Franzen’s description of it being “compassionate,” calling it “odd.” Quoting Jared Diamond’s review of it (“gripping”) is pretty vague. “Gripping” could mean anything. Back cover blurbs are often non-committal like that. Frankly I thought she made the book sound like ridiculous sensationalism.

    • Good. I need to send her links to the feral cat orgs. Oh, someone at Vox Felina said that this book was “endorsed” by the Audubon-affiliated writer Ted William, who wrote an article encouraging people to lace cat food with Tylenol to poison any outside cats. I don’t think his endorsement means anything outside his tiny community of sociopaths, but IMO it’s damaging to the Smithsonian to have an employee write a book that attracts the lunatic fringe.

      • The Smithsonian has gone downhill in recent years. They used to put out high quality articles, but at least on the website now, I see really poorly written stuff that’s little more than someone’s blog post. It’s very sad.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s