.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Cat Defender

Exposing the Lies and Crimes of Bird Advocates, Wildlife Biologists, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, Exterminators, Vivisectors, the Scientific Community, Fur Traffickers, Cloners, Breeders, Designer Pet Purveyors, Hoarders, Motorists, the United States Military, and Other Ailurophobes

Monday, July 09, 2018

The Slimy, Underhanded, and Utterly Despicable New York Times Fabricates Another One-Sided, Scurrilous Screed Against Cats and This Time Around the Target of Its Libels Is a TNR Colony at the Googleplex in Mountain View

David Streitfeld 

"The strength of facts. The power of truth. Reporting stories you can trust."
-- The New York Times' preposterous assertion on its web site.

In his much celebrated 1906 publication, The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defines a liar as "a lawyer with a roving commission," which is a fair enough assessment in its own right. If he were alive today, however, he would be a good deal closer to the truth if he were to substitute The New York Times with its worldwide circulation for the word lawyer.

For example, never having cared so much as a rat's ass for either the truth or fair play, the members of the Sulzberger Gang were up to their old underhanded tricks once again on May 26th when they served up yet still another propaganda offensive against cats. This time around the object of The Times' libels and outright lies were the sixty-eight cats that belong to a managed colony located on the grounds of the sprawling Googleplex in Mountain View, sixty-two kilometers south of San Francisco, and whom the newspaper falsely blames for a precipitate decline in the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) population is adjacent Shoreline Park.

In order to grease the skids for the cats' eventual demise, The Times called upon a menteur à triple étage by the name of David Streitfeld who not only lacks a background in ecological issues but, if online reports are credible, never has even so much as attended college. Yet in spite of that usual prerequisite, he has been able to easily secure more than twenty years' worth of plum assignments scribbling about technology for not only The Times but the likes of The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times as well.

Of course, it goes almost without saying that those who gnaw on the same moldy bagel and slobber over the same bowl of rancid matzo ball soup as those doing the hiring always have a leg up on the competition. Being every bit as bereft of ability, honesty, and integrity as management is another huge advantage that the Streitfelds of this world enjoy; after all, birds of the same rotten feather flock together.

Furthermore, this is not the first time that Streitfeld's accuracy and fairness have been called into question; au contraire, he apparently is not even a competent business reporter. (See hughhowey.com, September 15, 2014, "David Streitfeld Is Dangerous and Disingenuous" and Business Insider, February 14, 2011, "David Streitfeld Knows Better Than This.")

Yet in spite of all of that, Streitfeld has the chutzpah to brag about having won a Pulitzer Prize in 2013. That in itself tells the world all that it ever needs to know about those who hand out those awards in that singling out a no-account, rotten bum like Streitfeld for excellence in journalism is equivalent to the National Organization of Women naming Harvey Weinstein as its "Man of the Year."

True to form like all inveterate liars, he wasted no time by declaring from the outset that "only in Shoreline Park are the newcomers eating the natives." Leaving aside for the time being that it never has been proven that cats in general and those belonging to the Googleplex in particular are responsible for the decline in burrowing owls, Streitfeld is wrong in assuming that the owls are native to Shoreline Park and that the cats are interlopers.

Mountain View purchased that tract of land, now totaling seven-hundred-fifty acres, in 1968 with the intention of turning it into a recreation area but the cost of trucking in huge amount of dirt in order to raise it to twenty feet above sea level so as to prevent flooding proved to be too costly and that idea was abandoned. The record is not clear but apparently before that time the areas was either flooded a good deal of the time or totally under water and that in turn makes it highly unlikely that there were either any burrowing owls or cats to be found on the premises.

Mountain View instead chose to fill in the area the cheap way by importing garbage from San Francisco. By 1983, however, the city reckoned that it had collected enough refuse so as to belatedly transform the area into Shoreline Park.

Whether it was the owls or the cats that arrived first on the scene is unclear but regardless of that it surely must have been tough sledding for any and all creatures owing to the methane fires that periodically broke out, the toxic ground underneath, and the occasional flooding that stubbornly persisted. Much more to the point, the area never was intended to be exclusively a wildlife refuge and that clearly can be seen by the wholesale development that rapidly ensued.

Most notably, there is Shoreline Golf Links which boasts an eighteen-hole course, a pro shop, driving range, and a fifty-acre artificial lake. Also located in the park is the Shoreline Aquatic Center, which features sailing, surfing, and rowing, the Shoreline Cafe and Michael's at Shoreline, a restaurant, the Shoreline Amphitheatre, and the transplanted Rengstorff House.

Press reports claim that by sometime in the 1980's hundreds of burrowing owls had settled in Shoreline Park but those same dispatches fail to make any mention whatsoever of cats. Nevertheless, that does not preclude the distinct possibility that they were living there then and even before the owls arrived.

None of that has prevented Stephanie Ellis of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) from putting in a claim of exclusivity on behalf of the owls. "Studies have shown cats kill millions of birds a year," she bellowed to the Mountain View Voice of Palo Alto on April 2, 2014. (See "Council Balks at Controversial Cat Rules.") "Cats are not (a) native species and they are not in decline however they are putting birds at risk that are in decline."

From there she went on to showcase not only her prejudices but abysmal ignorance as well. "If you remove cats the argument is more will move in, but feeding areas and cat colonies are actually attractive to other cats because of pheromones," she declared.

As any simpleton should know, cats that belong to managed colonies, such as those that are cared for by GCat Rescue at the Googleplex, are sterilized before being released and as such their mating days are a thing of the past. Even when they have not been altered it is not unusual for an alpha male to drive out the other toms so that he can have a lion's share of the available females for himself.

While she was busily divesting cats of any and all rights to live in Shoreline Park, Ellis conveniently failed to mention that her organization has been removing owls from the park in order to relocate them to a raptor breeding facility in Idaho. The birds' eggs are then returned to nests in the park, Moffett Federal Airfield near Sunnyvale, and the Alviso section of San Jose to, hopefully, be raised by other owls.

That may or may not be a good idea from a conservation standpoint but there cannot be any disputing that is absurd for the SCVAS to claim that such fledglings are native to Shoreline Park. Mercifully, Old "Smell Us" Ellis has since then left the SCVAS and the Bay Area in favor of Eastham, Massachusetts, where she now spews her prejudices, lies, and filth for the benefit of Wild Care Incorporated; California's loss has become the Bay State's gain.

It also is imperative to point out that GCat Rescue was not formed until 2010 and that the burrowing owls in Shoreline Park were in decline long before then. In fact, the birds have been listed as a species of special concern by the California Fish and Game Commission ever since the late 1970's.

They additionally are listed as a species of special concern in another ten states as well as being endangered in Canada and threatened in Mexico. In North and South American as a whole, however, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists them as a species of "least concern."

In North America, the IUCN blames the USDA's Wildlife Services for its annual mass slaughter of prairie dogs, in whose burrows the owls often nest, for their decline. The appropriation of their habitats by farmers, miners, oil companies, developers, and others is putting additional pressure on the birds.

Much more importantly, it is not cats that the IUCN blames for the birds' decline but rather motorists, badgers, coyotes, snakes, and dogs. Whereas conditions and threats vary by location and circumstances, it is difficult to see how that GCat Rescue's TNR program is harming the owls.

For instance, over the course of the past eight years the charity has trapped two-hundred-thirty-eight cats and found homes for one-hundred-forty-nine of them. Besides, the sixty-eight of them that it has returned to the Googleplex it and, presumably, its partners at the Humane Society of Silicon Valley in Milpitas, have killed twenty-one others.

Some estimates put the number of homeless cats in Santa Clara County at one-hundred-twenty-five-thousand and some of them may have been dumped in Shoreline Park and thus missed by GCat Rescue which does not trap there. The Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) of Santa Clara does admittedly trap about a dozen cats annually in the vicinity of Shoreline Park but it is believed that most of them are returned to GCat Rescue under its Feral Freedom Program. It does, however, kill other cats that it traps in Mountain View and during 2013 its kill rate was a whopping sixteen per cent.

It thus seems clear that ornithologists and wildlife biologists should be commending, not excoriating, GCat Rescue for removing and finding homes for the cats that have been so cruelly abandoned at the Googleplex. The cats that it has killed are another matter altogether and the charity accordingly should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for its crimes.

None of those nuances are to be found in Streitfeld's drivel. First of all, he purposefully neglects to inform readers of The Times of the owls' IUCN classification.

A Trio of Burrowing Owls

Instead, he further confounds the issue by, on the one hand, claiming that only a "handful" of them remain in Shoreline Park while, on the other hand, stating there there are only fifty of the birds left in Silicon Valley. That, supposedly, is his backhanded way of accusing the cats of killing burrowing owls throughout Silicon Valley even though it is difficult to see how that he arrived at that conclusion since he, as far as it has been revealed, only toured the Googleplex.

Nevertheless, this slicker from Manhattan went on to categorically declare that all cats in Shoreline park are the products of the Googleplex. Yet, he simultaneously pleads total ignorance as to the number of cats that GCat Rescue has sterilized and released.

Given Streitfeld's extreme prejudice and agenda, it is not the least bit surprising what he did next. First of all, he claims to have sent an unspecified number of e-mail letters to GCat Rescue that went unanswered.

Following that, he claims to have contacted an unidentified spokeswoman from Google who refused to discuss the matter with him. Readers of The Times only have his word as to what actually transpired but it certainly would appear in hindsight that he never wanted GCat Rescue's side of the story in the first place; rather, his agenda from the get-go was to smear cats and their advocates and that is precisely what he proceeded to do.

First of all, if he had so much as an honest bone in his malignant carcass he would have either interviewed someone from GCat Rescue or refrained from writing his one-sided pack of lies. If he did in fact contact the charity and was refused an interview it was only because it is well aware of The New York Times' biases and therefore did not trust him to fairly present its side of the story.

Besides, if he had had the slightest bit of interest in telling the cats' side of the story he easily could have contacted Fat Cat Rescue of Mountain View, the Palo Also Humane Society, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, the SVACA, or any number of feline rescue groups in the Bay Area. Failing that, he always could have contacted either Louise Holton of Alley Cat Rescue in Mt. Rainier, Maryland, or Becky Robinson of Alley Cat Allies in Bethesda, Maryland.

If he had been too lazy to have done any of that, he simply could have researched the issue online. Presumably, the billionaires who own The New York Times provide their scribes with computers.

For example, Fat Cat Rescue's dire warning regarding the consequences of outlawing TNR are easily found on the web. "The best we can do is manage the population," a spokesman for the group told the Mountain View Voice in the April 2, 2014 article cited supra. "The volunteers will not be doing the trapping and you will have an explosion of the population and it will backfire."

After having purposefully and systematically excluded all cat advocacy groups from the debate, Streitfeld proceeded to call to the witness box no fewer than six die-hard cat-haters to bash the species with impunity One of them was an unidentified wildlife biologist who works for the city of Mountain View and he wasted no time in telling The Times that he was worried about the cats' "significant impacts" on "especially burrowing owls."

He next called upon bicyclist and photographer Johanna van de Woestijne who not only groused about seeing cats in the park but supplied him with, presumably gratis, a series of snaps that she has taken of the cats. One of them purports to show a cat making its way through the tall grass with something in its mouth but it is impossible to tell even if it is animal at all.

Another of her snaps shows a cat streaking across a barren expanse of ground that she alleges is insides the park. That very well could be the case but the public only has hers and Streitfeld's word for it.

Nevertheless, contrary to what she and Streitfeld would have the world to believe, those two photographs serve only to discredit their smear campaign. That is because if inveterate cat-haters such as them had in their possession photographic evidence of any cat killing an owl there can be little doubt that they would have splashed it all over both The Times and the Internet. Given that they have not done so, they surely must not have such evidence in their possession and as a consequence they have instead resorted to innuendoes and circumstantial evidence.

Streitfeld even goes further by insinuating that cats killed three owls in 2015 alone. "The remains of an owl -- a leg, a wing, a few scattered feathers -- were found here in 2015, shortly after a feral cat was seen stalking it," he declares. "Another owl was discovered dead in its burrow, and a third disappeared that year and was presumed killed."

Since both he and Woestijne have plenty of money and nothing better to do with their time and talents than to attack cats, they easily could have had necropsies performed on the remains of the two dead owls but they were not about to do that because they are not only too cheap and lazy to have done so but scared to death that the examination might have shown that the owls died from something else other than being attacked by a cat.

Toward the end of his spiel, Streitfeld claims that a cat belonging to GCat Rescue was trapped twice last year by the SVACA only to be later found dead in the park in August. He does not, however, shed any tears over the cat's demise or, much more pertinently, even speculate as to its cause of death.

That is because The New York Times, ornithologists, and wildlife biologists fervently believe that they are endowed with a carte blanche right to kill cats with impunity. If either the SVACA or GCat Rescue were doing their jobs, they would have demanded that a police inquiry had been opened into the cat's death. Perhaps either Woetijne or one of her cat-hating confederates killed it.

Shani Kleinhaus of the SCVAS not only lambasted GCat Rescue, but conscientious private citizens as well, for feeding cats. "It's a problem," she cried her eyes out to The New York Times. "Many of the avian species around the Bay breed on or close to the ground, and the cats prey on them at their most vulnerable moments -- sitting on their eggs caring for their young."

Streitfeld, who could not be bothered with contacting so much as one supporter of the cats, did have more than enough time to go on a leisurely tour of GCat Rescue's feeding stations and winterized shelters that was conducted by none other than Eileen McLaughlin of the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge) of Palo Alto. Not surprisingly, she, the SCVAS, and Woestijne have been lobbying Google to scrap its TNR initiative ever since 2012.

"They told us it was something their employees were doing and they couldn't interfere," she groused to The New York Times. "We lose the owls, we lose something else next, and then something else. We need biodiversity."

Finally, in order to round out his hatchet job, Streitfeld went to considerable effort in order to dredge up Travis R. "Hardcore Cat-Hater" Longcore of Los Angeles. He even was studious enough in order to include in his article a link to one of his anti-cat rants.

"Cats that are fed still hunt. Even neutered cats and spayed cats hunt," he pontificated to The Times. "If you have an outdoor cat sanctuary, you can expect there to be consequences to the native wildlife."

"Hardcore" Longcore, as it might be recalled by some, teaches geography at both UCLA and the University of Southern California but he is perhaps better known for his work with the Urban Wildlands Group which in 2009 was able to successfully persuade Thomas I. McKnew, Jr. of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to ban the city of Los Angeles from implementing its own TNR program. (See the Los Angeles Daily News of Woodland Hills, December 18, 2009, "Court Ruling Barring Los Angeles from Sterilizing Feral Cats Stirs Controversy.")

Sticking it to cats has become such great fun at UCLA that "Hardcore" Longcore's fellow cartographer, Gregory S. Okin, is on record as begrudging them, and dogs, of the enjoyment of their daily bread. (See PLOS ONE, May 2, 2017, "Environmental Impacts of Food Consumption by Dogs and Cats," The Washington Post, August 4, 2017, "The Hidden Costs of Dog and Cat Food," and Deutsche Welle, August 8, 2017, "Your Cat Is Killing the Earth -- but You Can Prevent It.")

There can be little doubt, however, that "Hardcore" Longcore has a big mouth and that he knows how to use it but that which is often overlooked is the petit fait that he also is an unabashed liar. For instance, for this prancing and strutting map jockey to declare that cats hunt and chase is not only superfluous but disingenuous and designed to take advantage of the feeble-minded.

That is demonstrated by the well-known fact that most cats will chase almost anything. For instance, does their penchant for chasing strings automatically transform them into murderers of yarn? According to "Hardcore" Longcore that is surely the case.

Many shelters are guilty of indulging in the same patented dishonesty. They do so by ramming pens and pencils through the bars of cages holding imprisoned cats and when the occupants respond by grabbing at the objects they pronounce them on the spot to be wild as a pretext for snuffing out their lives en masse.

One of GCat Rescue's Feeding Stations That Birders Want Removed

Since cats will chase almost anything, they do sometimes chase birds but what despisers of the species such as "Hardcore" Longcore, Woestijne, Kleinhuas, and McLaughlin, purposefully conceal from the uninitiated is that they seldom catch them. If anyone ever bothered to honestly look into the matter they soon would discover that innumerable homeowners have backyards that are chock-full of both cats and songbirds. Some of these birds are so fearless and adept at avoiding the cats that they repeatedly help themselves to their vittles and water.

Most outrageous of all, ornithologists' holier-than-thou attitude serves as convenient smokescreen in order to cover up the fact that birds, including owls, feast on cats. Furthermore, these attacks and killings occur not only in rural areas but also in strictly urban settings.

Many of these city-dwelling birds of prey are likewise fed and protected by ornithologists and others who are beside themselves with joy every time that they either kill or maim for life a cat. (See Cat Defender posts of July 31, 2006, August 14, 2008, August 1, 2011, and February 16, 2012 entitled, respectively, "A Fifteen-Year-Old Cat Named Bamboo Miraculously Survives Being Abducted and Mauled by a Hoot Owl in British Columbia," "Birds Killing Cats: Blackie Is Abducted by a Sea Gull and Then Dropped but Her Fall Is Broken by a Barbed-Wire Fence," "Eddie Is Saved by an Outdoor Umbrella after He Is Abducted from the Balcony of His Manhattan Apartment and Then Dropped by a Retailed Hawk," and "Hawk Suffers Puncture Wounds to His Stomach and One Paw When He Is Abducted by a Raptor Hired to Patrol a City Dump on Vancouver Island.")

When the total number of cats and kittens that are killed each year by birds is added to the total that ornithologists and wildlife biologists extirpate en masse it surely dwarfs by a wide margin the number of birds that cats kill. The unwillingness of "Hardcore" Longcore and other despisers of the species to own up to that is their biggest lie of all.

What with one day of the week devoted to making the rounds signing up for the various checks that he receives, another day spent collecting and cashing them, and the remaining ones given over to strutting, preening, admiring his reflection in mirrors and windows as he passes by, "Hardcore" Longcore never has been able to find much time to engage in any halfway serious intellectual toil and why should he? He already is making a pretty penny spreading lies about cats.

When Mark Tapley was asked to draw a verbal picture of the United States in Charles Dickens' 1844 novel, Martin Chuzzlewit, he promptly rendered the following depiction that just happens to fit "Hardcore" Longcore to a tee:

"I should want to draw it like a bat, for its short-sightedness; like a bantam for its bragging; like a magpie for its honesty; like a peacock for its vanity; like an ostrich, for its putting its head in the mud, and thinking nobody sees it..."

Whereas ground-nesting avian species, such as burrowing owls, are more vulnerable to predation than those that reside in trees, Streitfeld's insinuations and outright lies hardly support his ludicrous conclusions. "Gradually, public records requests and old-fashioned snooping uncovered a trail," he thunders triumphantly. "It led southeast from the sun-burnished slopes of the park up Permanente Creek and into the ever-expanding empire of Google."

In making such an assertion he completely ignores that it has only been fairly recently that cats in general and those that belong to GCat Rescue in particular have been implicated in the long-term decline of burrowing owls in Shoreline Park. In the past, for example, an accusatory finger has been pointed at Shoreline Golf Links but that certainly has not deterred it from still proclaiming on its web site that its course "allows you (duffers) to play alongside our famed bird sanctuary."

No one is seemingly willing to speculate on how many owls and other animals have met their Waterloos on its links, but it is common knowledge that the pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other assorted chemicals that are ladled on such courses in order to maintain them in tiptop shape are lethal to animals. Wildlife Services also willingly removes all animals, except those explicitly protected by law, that the operators of these expensive playgrounds for idlers and the well-heeled say must go.

Plus, at Shoreline Golf Links an unspecified number of owls have been struck and killed by golf balls. Even more deplorable, in March of 2014 a duffer killed a pair of the birds by stopping up their burrow with a plastic seed and sand bottle that is used to repair divots. (See the Mountain View Voice, June 10, 2014, "Burrowing Owls Found Dead at Shoreline Golf Course.")

Foxes, skunks, raccoons, dogs, hawks, and other raptors also have been accused of preying upon the owls. Even park maintenance workers are suspected of running over them with their trucks.

Development in and around the park would appear to be, however, the owls' biggest menace in that it is not only robbing them of their habitat but also the mice that they hunt for sustenance. For example, Mountain View has constructed Fußball and baseball fields south of the golf course where the owls used to hunt.

In 2008, the city paid US$150,000 in order to relocate a pair of the birds in order to accommodate Google's plans to build a new hotel, conference center, and office building at Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road. The owls in turn were removed to a tract of land in Shoreland Park. (See the Mountain View Voice, January 10, 2008, "Burrowing Owls Versus Google.")

More recently, Google enlarged its Charleston East campus and that plan, despite bringing in thousands of new residents to the area, has received the wholehearted endorsement of none other than Kleinhaus of the SCVAS. Specifically, she argued that such development would not adversely affect the owls because their habitat is separated from it by the four-lane Amphitheatre Parkway.

"Google is looking to mitigate and build habitat for the owls to create places where the population can increase," she averred to the Mountain View Voice on November 14, 2016. (See "Worries over Dwindling Burrowing Owl Population.") "If the conditions are right, we think the owls will come back."

Considerably less trusting souls can immediately detect the old familiar smell of the Audubons' legendary greed, double-dealing, and hypocrisy topped off by their customary scapegoating of cats. If additional proof of Kleinhaus's perfidy should be needed, it can be found in the fact that she is on Google's payroll as a consultant on matters relating to the owls.

The extent of her sellout, and possibly McLaughlin's and Woestijen's as well, is not known but it has been disclosed that in 2016 Google gave SCVAS an unspecified amount of money so that it could produce a self-guided birding map as well as to organize tours of the Googleplex. The company also financed the writing and printing of one of the so-called charity's brochures that was entitled "Make Your Home Safe for Birds."

Other financial entanglements doubtlessly exist between the birders and Google but Streitfeld and The New York Times have intentionally concealed those underhanded dealings from the public. As a matter of ethics and honesty, charities, public advocacy groups and, especially, sleazy rags such as The Times should publicly disclose their sources of income, political and other affiliations, and their ingrained prejudices.

For instance, all stories appearing in The Times about cats should include at the top of the page the disclaimer that the paper hates them with a passion and will do everything in its power to screw them to the wall. It should not be allowed under any circumstances to continue to get away with masquerading as an impartial beacon of truth and candor.

Kleinhaus's shameful hypocrisy is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg as far as double-dealing ornithologists and wildlife biologists are concerned. First of all, they have been blamed for a decline in the burrowing owl population by scaring them away from their nests while sauntering through their dwindling habitat in order to photograph and videotape their activities.

Secondly, by coming too close to their nests they are frightening the birds into leaving their burrows and scurrying around defensively in front of them and that in turn is alerting hawks and other predators to their presence. (See the Mountain View Voice, September 2, 2011, "Will New Plan Save the Burrowing Owls?")

In addition to Kleinhaus's dealing from both ends of the deck, it would be awfully interesting to know just how many of the owls and she and her confederates, Woestijne and McLaughlin, have killed indirectly through both their harassment of them and by repeatedly traipsing through their habitat. Unfortunately, that is one question that is destined to go unanswered because all of them are far too dishonest to ever come clean in a million years.

Anyone even remotely familiar with how that ornithologists operate knows only too well that they not only hate cats but, more much importantly, they only care about certain species of birds. Specifically, they only stir themselves to action when it comes to those birds that they have a monetary interest in and, accordingly, can exploit as a means of demonizing and eradicating cats.

For example, the National Audubon Society allowed oil to be drilled in its Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, for more than fifty years. Through that effort it took in more than US$25 million in royalties. It never has said, however, how many birds, deer, muskrats, alligators, otters, and other animals that it killed or the toll that its activities inflicted upon that once pristine environment.

It likewise has allowed oil drilling in its Bernard W. Baker Sanctuary in Bellevue, Michigan. From that effort it has raked in at least US$500,000 at the expense of the Sandhill Cranes and other animals that live there.

 Hate-Filled Old Hag Eileen McLaughlin Thinks She Owns the World

It also allows oil drilling in the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, east of Bonita Springs, and at doubtlessly other locations under its dominion. It staggers the mind how that any organization could claim to be so madly in love with birds on the one hand while simultaneously turning over their habitats to companies to drill for oil. One can only imagine the conniption fits that loudmouths Kleinhaus, Woestijne, and McLaughlin would have if ExxonMobil showed up on their front lawns one morning and commenced drilling for oil.

Their outrageous hypocrisy also serves to undermine conservation efforts elsewhere, especially on public lands. (See the Institute for Energy Research, February 13, 2015, "Environmentalists Allow Oil Drilling on Their Land, but Oppose It in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.")

Whenever these twenty-four carat fraudsters are not having a high old time of it rolling in the hay with Google, the oil companies, and other fire-breathing capitalists, they while away the hours by ingratiating themselves with the various feline expulsion and eradication departments that exist within the federal bureaucracy, such as Wildlife Services, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Corps of Army Engineers, the United States Postal Service, and the National Park Service. It is a productive strategy and birders have recorded many impressive victories over the years. (See Cat Defender posts of May 24, 2007, June 23, 2011, June 23, 2011, February 24, 2012, April 17, 2010, February 11, 2009, and August 7, 2014 entitled, respectively, "The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the USDA's Wildlife Services Commence Trapping and Killing Cats on Florida's Big Pine Key," "Wallowing in Welfare Dollars, Lies, and Prejudice, the Bloodthirsty United States Fish and Wildlife Service Is Again Killing Cats in the Florida Keys," "The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Humane Society Hoist a Glass in Celebration of Their Extermination of the Cats on San Nicolas Island," "Lake Lanier's Cats Face an Uncertain Future Following Their Ouster by the Liars and Defamers at the United States Army Corps of Engineers," "The United States Postal Service Knuckles Under to the Threats and Lies of a Cat-Hater and Gives Sammy the Boot," and "The National Park Service Racks Up a Major Victory by Expelling the Plum Beach Cats but It Is Thwarted in Its Burning Desire to Dance a Merry Little Jig on Their Graves.")

Ever once in a while all the sucking up and ingratiating themselves to the authorities backfires on ornithologists as it did in nearby Walnut Creek, thirty-four kilometers west of San Francisco, back in 2009. (See Cat Defender post of March 10, 2009 entitled "The Audubons' Dirty Dealings with the Mercenary United States Fish and Wildlife Service Rebound to the Detriment of Acorn Woodpeckers.")

Last but certainly not least to put in her two cents' worth was Janet Alexander of the SVACA and she gave it to GCat Rescue with both barrels. "Google understands the cats are not supposed to cross the line into the park," she barked to The New York Times.

Whether or not that is a true statement is a debatable point but there does not appear to be in situ any per se law that bars them from the park. Nevertheless, Streitfeld put that quote to good use as the caption of a photograph taken by, not Woestijne, but rather The Times' own Jason Henry that purports to show a cat making its way toward the owls' nesting area.

"One recent evening, as dusk wielded to darkness, a cat came up the path from Google (Googleplex)," Streitfeld declared in the May 26th article itself. "It was heading straight for the owls' domain."

Although the photograph was taken in the twilight and at a considerable distance, it hardly shows what Streitfield maintains. On the contrary, the cat is heading down the path toward the Googleplex and that can be determined by the points of its ears and the movement of one of its rear legs.

To top it all off, once he had finished with his labors on behalf of the cat-haters, Strietfeld was overcome with an irresistible urge to wax philosophical on the deplorable state of human nature. "Like so many stories these days about Big Tech, this is a tale about how attempts to do good often produce unexpected consequences, and how even smart people (especially, perhaps, smart people) can be reluctant to rethink their convictions," the colossal liar and big phony summed up.

First of all, ornithologists, wildlife biologists and, especially, The New York Times have never so much as once ever paused to rethink their views on cats. Year in and year out they are always singing the same old song that cats are evil and all of them should be killed.

Secondly, Streitfeld and The New York Times never have recognized any distinction between either good and evil on the one hand or between the truth and outright lies on the other hand. To put the matter succinctly, Streitfeld anti-cat screed is a complete fabrication in both words and pictures from start to finish.

How it all came to fruition is, however, a matter of conjecture because The Times never publicly discloses who decides which stories it is going to publish and who and what animals it is going to libel to the hilt. Although looks, admittedly, can be deceiving, Streitfeld does not strike one as possessing the prerequisite brain power needed to have concocted such a smear job on his own.

That in turn lends itself to speculation that either Kleinhaus, McLaughlin, or Woestijne have at their disposal a likeminded confederate within the editorial apparatchik at The Times and that individual in turn assigned Streitfeld to be the architect of their hatchet job on cats. Even then he would still have to be either a whore for hire or an inveterate cat-hater himself to have penned such a hideously lopsided smear.

His shenanigans are strikingly familiar to anyone who has followed The New York Times' coverage of cat and bird issues over the years. For example, in 2006 amateur ornithologist James Munn Stevenson of Galveston was caught redhanded gunning down cats.

He even bragged on social media that he had shot and killed upwards of two-hundred-fifty of them. (See Cat Defender posts of November 22, 2006, November 20, 2007, and August 7, 2008 entitled, respectively, "Evil Galveston Bird Lover Is Finally Arrested After Having Gunned Down Hundreds of Cats," "Bird Lovers All Over the World Rejoice as Serial Killer James M. Stevenson Is Rewarded by a Galveston Court for Gunning Down Hundreds of Cats," and "Crime Pays! Having Made Fools Out of Galveston Prosecutors, Serial Cat Killer James Munn Stevenson Is Now a Hero and Laughing All the Way to the Bank.")

Not about to stand idly by and allow one of the world's most prolific cat killers to be publicly pilloried, The New York Times followed the lead of the Houston Chronicle and hired bird-lover Bruce Barcott to do a long-winded piece on the matter. (See Cat Defender post of May 1, 2007 entitled "The Houston Chronicle Launches a Propaganda Offensive on Behalf of Serial Cat Killer Jim Stevenson.")

What ensued was a virulent anti-cat screed that was almost as lopsidedly biased as Streitfeld's unctuous gruntings. Most notably, Barcott not only allotted considerable time and space to three pro-bird advocacy groups to bash cats with impunity, but eight inveterate cat-haters, and three journals. By contrast, he allowed only English biologists Roger Tabor, Carma Crimins, a TNR practitioner from Portland, Oregon, and John Newland, the San Luis Pass Bridge toll collector who had apprehended Stevenson, to speak up for the felines.

Secondly, just as Streitfeld turned over the pages of The Times to Woestijne so that she could showcase her anti-cat photographs, Barcott and The Times employed Brooklyn artist Jilian Tamaki to render a pair of sketches that depicted cats stalking birds. By contrast, The Times categorically turned down Newland's offer to provide it with photographs of some of the cats that Stevenson had murdered in cold blood.

The third unmistakable similarity between the two articles lies in how that The Times chose to showcase them. For instance, Barcott's anti-cat spiel appeared in the newspaper's Sunday magazine whereas Streitfield's piece, although it first appeared online on Saturday, May 26th, it turned up again on page one of The Times' Sunday May 27th edition underneath a multiple column headline that read: "Google Doesn't Hate Owls. It Just Loves Cats." One of Woestijne's photographs of the owls appeared with it on page one.

Given that The Times' circulation on Sundays is double what it is during the remainder of the week, it is easy to see why it chose to showcase both Barcott's and Streitfeld's pieces in such a fashion. C'est-à-dire, once the paper had decided to libel cats it was committed to attracting the largest audience possible for its lies. (See Cat Defender post of December 8, 2007 entitled "All the Lies That Fit: Scheming New York Times Hires a Bird Lover to Render His 'Unbiased' Support for James M. Stevenson.")

Shortly thereafter in 2009, The Times called upon the services of its own Andrew C. Revkin to once more stick it to cats. His most egregious act of patented dishonesty involved his misuse of a sixteen-minute video produced by Bryan Kortis of Neighborhood Cats in Manhattan.

The first seven minutes of the video are critical of cats and TNR and, not surprisingly, Revkin did not hesitate to post that portion of it online with his story. The second half of the video, while no great shakes in its own right, did render a qualified endorsement of TNR.

Revkin was not about to allow the readers of The Times to view that part of it and it accordingly did not accompany his article. (See Cat Defender post of June 15, 2009 entitled "The American Bird Conservancy, The New York Times, and the Humane Society United to Form an Achse des Bösen Against Cats.")

Revkin since then has moved on and nowadays is spreading his anti-cat venom for her new employers at National Geographic. (See Cat Defender post of April 15, 2005 entitled "National Geographic Is Trying to Exterminate Cats.")

Whereas The New York Times is busily agitating for the mass annihilation of cats, some of its comrades-in-arms within the corporate media establishment, such as Ted Greenberg of NBC-Philadelphia, are contenting themselves with killing kittens. For example, when he received an urgent telephone call in early June of 2012 from his fellow tribal member, Evelyn Koegler, of the Aloe Village Senior Complex he immediately jumped in his old jalopy and burned up the seventy-five kilometers that separate the city of brotherly love from Egg Harbor City in southern New Jersey in order to be of assistance.

Once on the scene he did not waste any time in filing two on air defamatory reports about the cats but he did not stop there; rather, he took the bold step of calling in a local exterminator who promptly arrived on the scene and removed six kittens. "I really appreciate the fact that Channel 10 helped me and really helped the neighbors," Koegler cooed in the aftermath. "We couldn't do anything about it but you did and we thank you."

Streitfeld Claims This Cat Is Coming "Up the Path" to Hunt Owls

Every bit as dishonest as the day is long, Greenberg falsely informed his viewers that the kittens would be evaluated for adoption upon their arrival at the Atlantic County Animal Shelter in Pleasantville but that turned out to have been hardly what transpired. On the contrary, they were killed upon arrival. (See Cat Defender post of July 7, 2012 entitled "NBC Philadelphia Conspires with a Virulent Cat-Hater and an Exterminator in Order to Have Six Newborn and Totally Innocent Kittens Killed in Southern New Jersey.")

For a group of people who are all the time running off at the mouth about their rights and prerogatives, Greenberg, Streitfeld, and their fellow tribesmen never have evinced much in the way of regard for animals, Mother Earth, and goyim. Rather, they are more than willing to put the screws to almost anyone and any animal so long as it advances them in this world.

Then there is the Orlando Sentinel which in 2013 did not even think twice about publishing a clarion call issued by Ted Williams and the National Audubon Society that cats should be poisoned out of existence with acetaminophen. (See Cat Defender post of May 18, 2013 entitled "Ted Williams and the National Audubon Society Issue a Call for Cats to Be Poisoned with Tylenol® and Then Try to Lie Out of It.")

Other news organization that have published related stories on the burrowing owls have demonstrated themselves to be lazy and brainless twits who are incapable of much more than parroting and rehashing Streitfeld's lies. They also believe, like him, that there is only one side to this story.

For example, the only bit initiative displayed by Kristin Lam of The Mercury News of San Jose was to afford Woestijne another opportunity to spout more of her anti-cat rhetoric which she promptly took full advantage of by calling for the removal of the cats' feeding stations and for them to be confined behind a fence. "Google can certainly afford to enclose their campus cats in catios," she blowed to The Mercury News on May 30th. (See "Google Group's Feral Cats Threaten Burrowing Owls at Shoreline Park.") "There are plenty of good designs available."

Since she is the one who is doing the complaining, it is she who should be fencing in the owls and standing guard over them night and day. Moreover, she should get her hands out of Google's pockets and pay for the care and protection of the owls herself.

Other than allowing Kleinhaus to endorse "Hardcore" Longcore's nonsense about cats and hunting, the best that lazy and prejudiced Old Lammer Scammer could come up was to reiterate Streitfeld's unsubstantiated claim that there was a proven correlation between a decline in the population of burrowing owls in Shoreline Park and Google's cats. She even confounds the number of owls living in the park with those nesting in Santa Clara County as a whole.

Her abysmal laziness is most vividly demonstrated, however, in her acceptance of Streitfeld's claim that GCat Rescue has not disclosed how many cats that it has sterilized and returned to the Googleplex. If she had had enough initiative to have checked out the rescue group's web site she never would have committed such a glaring faux pas.

Demonstrating that journalists in Old Blighty are every bit as lazy and biased against cats as their American counterparts was Rob Crilly, the New York bureau chief of The Telegraph. Other than reiterating Streitfeld's lies, the only thing that he added to this debate was to expose the depth of the owls' defenders hatred of cats.

"If we want our wildlife we have to recognize these cats are people-dependent, and the people who maintain these colonies are actually facilitating their ability to survive outside," the old hag McLaughlin bellowed to The Telegraph on May 28th. (See "Cat Lovers at Google Are to Blame for Dwindling Owl Population, Say Wildlife Advocates.") "They can't do it without human help."

That is the usual sottise that bird lovers spout and "Silly" Crilly fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Quite obviously, they want to argue on both sides of the issue and to always have everything their way.

For instance, in one breath they argue that cats are such maniacal killers that they are decimating wildlife while on the other hand they maintain that they are so lacking in survival instincts that they can only survive with handouts from their supporters. Both of those assertions cannot possibly be true but they do fit in nicely with the kill all cats agenda advocated by ornithologists and wildlife biologists.

Crilly additionally fails to point out that it is precisely the owls who are the resident welfare bums in the area. For instance, the city of Mountain View has, inter alia, constructed burrows for them to nest in, trimmed the grass around them so that they can better see approaching predators, installed surveillance cameras in Shoreline Park for their protection, and trapped and relocated squirrels from Shoreline Golf Links so that they can be tricked into building burrows for the owls.

The latter initiative is not only outrageous but cruel to boot. Moreover, trapping and relocating squirrels breaks up their communities, traumatizes them, and places their lives in jeopardy of predation. Besides, the lives of owls are certainly not any more valuable than those of squirrels.

Being au fond nothing more than fascists with haloes, ornithologists fervently believe that they have an unqualified right to nakedly exploit, defame, and even kill any animal in furtherance of their quest for worldwide domination. (See Cat Defender post of March 15, 2007 entitled "The Connecticut Audubon Society Shows Its True Colors by Calling for the Slaughter of Feral Cats, Mute Swans, Mallards, Canada Geese, and Deer.")

Furthermore, Crilly purposefully ignores, like Streitfeld and Lam, the one-hundred-forty-nine felines that GCat Rescue has removed from the Googleplex by placing them in homes. Instead, he elects to parrot Woestijne blatant lie that without GCat Rescue's efforts there would be fewer cats near Shoreline Park.

He also fully endorses McLaughlin's nonsense that Shoreline park is critical habitat for the survival of the owls. Even in agreeing with with her on that point he fails to realize that unless Mountain View gets serious about severely restricting development and limiting population growth and the mindless consumption that always accompanies it there is not going to be sufficient habitat and resources to support very many animals of any species.

Once the dust finally settles, Google in all likelihood will cave in to the birders' demands and give its managed TNR colony the boot. Apparently, several other high-tech giants in the area, including Facebook, already have felt the heat from ornithologists and capitulated.

In that case, GCat Rescue likely will fold its tent and surrender its cats to the Palo Alto Humane Society or some other extermination camp and that will be the end of them. The very best dénouement that can be hoped for is that the company's chairman, Eric Schmidt, will be able to somehow summon a little bit of the moxie that he did when he was upbraided for paying a corporate tax rate of only 2.3 per cent by sheltering the lion's share of his company's revenues in Ireland, Holland, and Bermuda.

"It's called capitalism," he proudly told The Independent of London on December 17, 2012. (See "Google Boss: I'm Very Proud of Our Tax Avoidance Scheme.") "We're proudly capitalistic."

Google therefore has it well within its prerogatives to proudly become a pro-cat company and in doing so to tell ingrates like Kleinhaus, Woestijne, and McLaughlin to go to blazes. While it is at it, the company also should cut off their supply of free shekels. Before they go to their graves, ornithologists and wildlife biologists should be forced into doing at least some honest toil.

Ornithologists also have long enjoyed a reputation as being some of the world's biggest liars but that is not anything new and it is not about to change. The real culprit here, however, is The New York Times which continues to abuse the privileged perch that it enjoys in society by spreading malicious, unsubstantiated lies about cats.

Besides its total lack of ethics and any sense of fair play, The Times' runaway hubris is something indeed to behold. "The strength of facts. The power of truth," it heralds on its web site. "Reporting stories you can trust."

If those sentiments had been uttered in jest, the whole world would be entirely justified in laughing right along with the high-muck-a-mucks who came up with them. Somehow that does not seem to have been the case; rather, it certainly sounds and looks like The Times has started to believe its own lies and bullshit and that puts it on a par with ornithologists and wildlife biologists.

"Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper," Thomas Jefferson opined in a January 12, 1819 epistle to Nathaniel Macon. Since he felt that way all those years ago, one can only imagine what that he would think of such a disgraceful rag as The New York Times.

Perhaps he would be forced into concluding that other than taking advantage of the naïve and uninformed as a means of feathering its own nest, The New York Times does not serve any useful purpose. It is so god-awful in fact that it is not even fit to wipe one's ass with and anyone foolish enough to even try soon would be seized with a case of the piles so unrelenting that even a boxcar load of Preparation H® would be insufficient to assuage the pain and burning.

Photos: the Los Angeles Times (Streitfeld), the Mountain View Voice (owls), Maritza Cruz of The Mercury News (a feeding station), and Jason Henry of The New York Times (McLaughlin and cat in the twilight).

Friday, June 15, 2018

Jeany Finally Finds the Lasting Home and Compassionate Care Denied Her by Her Irresponsible and Grossly Negligent Owner at -- of All Places! -- a Shelter in Hemmingen

Jeany Has Lived at a Shelter for the Past Eight Years

"Tiere wie Jeany haben ihre 'Macken' ihrem Halter zu verdanken."
-- Hände für Pfoten

Jeany has had a hard life and from all indications it would appear that her troubles began as soon as she entered this world. Since absolutely nothing has been publicly divulged about the circumstances surrounding her birth it is not possible, however, to arrive at any firm conclusions regarding her pedigree, mother, and siblings.

Nevertheless, given that she was adopted in 2006 while still a kitten by an unidentified elderly woman, that lends itself to speculation that she very well could have been either abandoned for one reason or another or dumped at a shelter. She also could have been born in the wild and then orphaned.

Regardless of the circumstances, she in all probability was taken away from her mother at far too early an age. Ideally, kittens should spend at least six months or longer with their mothers because only they are able to provide them with the nourishment, constant grooming, and protection that they need and require. Later on when they are a bit older, they supervise their explorations of their environment, their playing, and even sometimes discipline them whenever they become too aggressive.

Siblings also play a huge role in each other's development. In particular, they not only provide constant companionship and amusement for each other but it is through being part of such a family that they acquire the social skills that they are going to need in order to successfully get along with all the other felines that are destined to walk in and out of their lives over the years.

In Jeany's case she was, figuratively speaking, thrown from the frying pan into the fire in that her guardian was unwilling to properly care for her. Even the woman's motives in adopting her were suspect in that she appears to have been almost exclusively preoccupied with what the brownish and gray female could do for her as opposed to fulfilling her custodial duties to the young kitten.

C'est-à-dire, she adopted Jeany so as to ease the pangs of her loneliness. As is the case with hoarding, it often is difficult under such circumstances to determine exactly where love leaves off and need takes over, but regardless of where that line is drawn the determining factor is always whether or not the needs of the cat have been met and with Jeany that most definitely was not the case.

First of all, whether through neglect or a lack of money, the woman failed to provide her with veterinary care and as a result she never was either vaccinated or spayed. The woman also never taught her how to properly use a litter box and that in turn led to the development of unsanitary conditions as well as an infestation of fleas.

Since the woman apparently resided alone, Jeany also never was afforded an opportunity to lose her ingrained fear of humans. That deplorable situation went unrectified for four long years until finally in 2010 the woman belatedly telephoned Hände für Pfoten (HfP) in the Arnum section of Hemmingen, six kilometers south of Hannover in Niedersachsen, and asked the charity to come and take her away.

Those who work with cats on a regular basis can sometimes be lulled into thinking that they have seen it all but HfP was hardly prepared for the dreadful conditions that it found in the woman's home. "Der Anblick und der Geruch der Wohnung war ubeschreiblich," the organization was later to swear November 21, 2017 on its web site.  (See "Jeany: bei uns zu Hause" under Aktuelles.)

As horrendous as it was, the condition of the woman's dwelling paled in comparison to what had been done to Jeany. Having been cruelly sentenced to spend the first four years of her life under unhygienic conditions where she was systematically deprived of the society of other cats and humans had led to such a build-up of accumulated sexual frustration and aggression that she was now a "durch den Wind."

About the only thing positive that could be said for her is that she nevertheless had somehow managed to stay alive for all those years and that in turn strongly implies that her derelict owner surely must have been providing her with some sort of sustenance. How much and of what quality is pretty much anyone's guess.

The quick, easy, and cheap solution would have been to have liquidated her on the spot but, just as it was later destined to do with another abused and emotionally damaged cat named Tinka, that never was an option as far as HfP was concerned. (See Cat Defender post of May 25, 2018 entitled "Emotionally Scarred and No Longer Young but Still Every Bit as Beautiful as Ever, Tinka Is Seeking the Permanent Home That Has Eluded Her Throughout Her Turbulent Life.")

Jeany Is Making the Best of Her Troubled Life

At HfP's shelter, Jeany was immediately sterilized, vaccinated, and medicated. Although the nature of the treatment that she received has not been disclosed, it nevertheless is safe to assume that she was, at the very least, dusted for fleas and other parasites as well as dewormed. Blood, urinary, and fecal samples also may have been taken and analyzed in a search for less obvious maladies.

Leider, by that time the psychological damage inflicted upon her by her previous owner looked to be irreversible. In particular, her fear of humans had become so ingrained that she would only allow the charity's Kerstin Küster to touch her and that made placing her in another home a very risky proposition.

With time, work, and the right caretaker the psychological damage done to Jeany possibly could have been undone but HfP instead elected to allow her to live out her remaining years at its shelter. That decision most likely was predicated upon the absence of anyone willing to invest the enormous amount of time and effort that socializing her would have entailed.

The risk of traumatizing her even further by subjecting her to a series of failed adoptions also likely factored into HfP's decision. That, for example, is precisely the cruel fate that has befallen an elderly tom named Harvey from Keighley in West Yorkshire. (See Cat Defender posts of August 31, 2017 and March 12, 2018 entitled, respectively, "With His Previous Owner Long Dead and Nobody Seemingly Willing to Give Him a Second Chance at Life, Old and Ailing Harvey Has Been Sentenced to Rot at a Shelter in Yorkshire" and "Much Like a Nightmare That Stubbornly Refuses to End, Harvey Continues to Be Shuttled from One Home to Another at the Expense of His Health and Well-Being.")

Not a great deal has been revealed concerning Jeany's new life other than that she has access to the shelter's garden as well as her own sleeping place in the business office. Somewhat surprisingly considering her rather cloistered background, she is said to get along well with the charity's other cats and dogs.

"Heute geht es ihr gut!" HfP declared in the November 21, 2017 article cited supra. Given that she has spent the last eight years of her life there and is now twelve years old, the shelter would appear to be all that he is destined to ever see and know of this world.

That in itself is sad but she is unquestionably far better off at HfP than she was in her previous home. Moreover, she is far from being an isolated case in that numerous cats, such as Tilly of Wednesbury in the West Midlands, have lived just about all of their lives at either sanctuaries or shelters. (See Cat Defender post of May 27, 2016 entitled "Snubbed by an Ignorant, Tasteless, and Uncaring Public for the Past Twenty-One Years, Tilly Has Forged an Alternative Existence of Relative Contentment at a Sanctuary in the Black Country.")

The amount of time that she is caged is a concern but since she has access to the garden and the business office that is a pretty good indication that HfP is limiting her time behind bars to a minimum. Another concern is that the charity possibly could be exploiting her as a blood donor.

For example, Nine Lives Foundation's Feline Well-Care Clinic in Redwood City, California, has unjustly incarcerated an orange and white male named Christopher and steadfastly refuses to place him in a new home for that very reason. Although he does not suffer from any known behavioral and psychological idiosyncrasies, he does have Type B blood flowing in his veins and since it is only found in five per cent of all cats that makes him far too valuable to be adopted out.

Due to multiple sedations, the constant shaving away of fur in order to locate veins, and the bruising and inflammation that occurs at such sites, it is risky and painful for cats to donate blood. Even more alarming, both blood pressure and heart rates drop precipitately during such procedures thereby necessitating the administration of intravenous fluids afterwards.

Cats repeatedly robbed of their blood also are prone to developing chronic anemia. (See Cat Defender post of November 13, 2010 entitled "Christopher, Who Has Persevered Through Tragedy and Given Back So Much, Is Now Being Held Captive for His Valuable Blood.")

Although such naked exploitation of cats is more commonly associated with veterinary clinics, wildlife refuges, and zoos, it is not unheard of for shelters to engage in it as well. The one thing that Jeany has going for herself in that regard is that the ranks of donors are usually restricted to cats between the ages of one and eight. That does not preclude the possibility, however, that she may been used as a donor earlier during her stay at HfP.

In addition to sparing Jeany's life and providing her with a place to live, the world is in HfP's debt for setting the record straight in regard to exactly who is responsible for the tragic plight of cats like her. "Lebensumstände bedingen Eigenschaften," the charity declares in the November 21, 2017 article cited supra. "Je älter ein Wesen ist, desto ausgeprägter sind seine Eigenschaften."

Jeany Is Not Looking Back, Only Forward and Upward

To put the matter succinctly, "Eigenschaften wie die von Jeany, sind von Menschen gemacht," HfP sums up. "Tiere wie Jeany haben ihre 'Macken' (personality and behavioral issues) ihrem Halter zu verdanken."

These so-called "Macken" can include most anything under the sun. For instance, they can be real and more or less permanent conditions such as those afflicting Jeany, Tinka, Harvey, and Tilly.

They can range from such totally understandable behavior as an ingrained fear of humans and dogs to a dislike for other cats. They accordingly can be accompanied by such common defense mechanisms as vocalizing, hissing, scratching, and biting.

They also can be totally frivolous and fanciful due to owing their genesis to either their owners' abysmal ignorance of cats or their insane attempts to mold them into something other than what nature has decreed. Included in this category can be such preeminently feline behavior as the marking of territory, the sharpening of claws on furniture and books, and eliminating outside the litter box.

Even sporadic displays of independence and a lack of servility toward their human overlords have been interpreted by some as sure signs of ingrained psychological and behavioral problems. So, too, can a cat's failure to be either sufficiently cuddly or a lap-sitter.

"Sie entstehen durch Selbstüberschätzung der Halter, mangelde Kentnisse von Katzenhaltung und --Erziehung," HfP concludes. Yet, in spite of that owners are seldom punished for the ignorance, neglect, and the abuse that they dish out so profusely; im Gegenteil, it is invariably cats like Jeany who end up paying the price for their derelict owners' crimes and they do so until the very day that they die.

At what might be called the more lenient end of the spectrum, they are divested of their reproductive organs and claws and doped up by unscrupulous veterinarians. At the other extreme, their owners either abandon them to fend for themselves in a hostile world or fob them off on shelters and veterinarians to kill.

The one glaring omission in HfP's otherwise sound analysis is its failure to acknowledge that members of the public also can be responsible for both falsely accusing cats of suffering from Macken as well as causing them to develop those types of issues. They do so by, inter alia, foolishly intervening in standoffs between their cats and other felines, siccing their dogs on them, and idiotically chasing, harassing, and cornering cats that they encounter on the street.

When these frightened and victimized cats respond by defending themselves and their territories they are branded as being violent, unsocialized, feral, and crazy. Legal action is sometimes taken against them and their owners for any scratches and bites that they inflict upon their attackers.

In extreme cases, they are sometimes confiscated and executed by the authorities. (See Cat Defender posts of April 3, 2006, June 26, 2006, October 17, 2009, October 18, 2009, October 23, 2009, and August 24, 2011, entitled, respectively, "Free Lewis Now! Connecticut Tomcat, Victimized by a Bum Rap, Is Placed Under House Arrest,"  "Lewis the Cat Cheats the Hangman but Is Placed Under House Arrest for the Remainder of His Life," "Bingo Is Placed Under House Arrest for Defending Himself Against a Neighbor Who Foolishly Intervened in a Cat Fight," "Minneapolis Is Working Overtime Trying to Kill an Octogenarian's Cat Named Hoppy for Defending His Turf Against Canine Intruders," "An Essex Welfare Bum Who Sicced His Dog on Cats and Beat Them with His Cane Is Now Pretending to Be the Victim of an Assault," and "Self-Defense Is Against the Law in Australia after a Woman Who Attacked a Cat Gets Away with Her Crime Whereas Her Victim Is Trapped and Executed.")

Even so much as trespassing on private property has led to some cats being declared dangerous and anti-social as well as being placed under house arrest. (See Cat Defender post of May 27, 2011 entitled "Odin Is Placed Under House Arrest by the Authorities in Weißenstein for Straying into the Garden of a Virulent Cat Hater" plus The Mirror of London, July 25, 2014, "Meet Rocky the Cat. Slapped with an 'Animal Anti-Social Behavior Order' for Terrorizing Neighbors" and The Telegraph of London, July 3, 2014, "RSPCA Refuses to Remove Feral Cat Destroying Couple's Home.")

Closely related to that long laundry list of trumped up slanders and libels directed at cats for simply behaving as they are prone to do are the outright lies spewed so profusely by despisers of the species. Chiefly among them are such totally bogus claims as that they are rabid, dirty, mangy, sickly, near death, and aggressive.

In the United States, these anti-cat individuals and organizations have found a reliable ally in the form of the nation's fascist police to carry out their machinations, intrigues, and crimes against the species. (See Cat Defender posts of March 31, 2008, September 16, 2009, September 22, 2011, September 27, 2014, and September 1, 2016 entitled, respectively, "A Cecil, Pennsylvania, Police Officer Summarily Executes a Family's Beloved Ten-Year-Old Persian, Elmo," "Acting Solely Upon the Lies of a Cat-Hater, the Raymore Police Pump Two Shotgun Blasts into the Head of Nineteen-Year-Old Declawed and Deaf Tobey," "The Neanderthaloid Politicians in Lebanon, Ohio, Wholeheartedly Sanction the Illegal and Cold-Blooded Murder of Haze by a Trigger-Happy Cop," "Falsely Branded as Being Rabid by a Cat-Hater, an Animal Control Officer, and the Gorham Police Department, Clark Is Hounded Down and Blasted with a Shotgun," and "The Legal and Political Establishment in a Small Pennsylvania Backwater Closes Ranks and Pulls Out All the Stops in Order to Save the Job and Liberty of the Bloodthirsty Cop Who Murdered Sugar.")

It thus seems indisputable that society as a whole, as well as individual owners, is responsible for the verbal, psychological, and physical abuse that is meted out to cats. It additionally does not make any real difference whether that abuse is lumped under the rubric of Macken or simply recognized as defamations and outright lies. At the end of the day, abuse is still abuse, false accusations are still lies, and injustice is still injustice.

Photos: Hände für Pfoten.

Friday, May 25, 2018

Emotionally Scarred and No Longer Young but Still Every Bit as Beautiful as Ever, Tinka Is Seeking the Permanent Home That Has Eluded Her Throughout Her Turbulent Life

Tinka Has Been Waiting to Be Adopted for More Than Two Years

"Wir schatzen sie auf mindstens Zehn Jahre, und es wäre so schön, wenn sie ein liebevolles Zuhause findet und nicht länger ihr Dasein im Tierschutz fristen muss."
-- Kerstin Küster of Hände für Pfoten

A beautiful ten-year-old black female with a dainty white nose and a matching breast named Tinka has been cruelly sentenced to spend to spend the past two years of her life at a shelter in the Arnum section of Hemmingen, six kilometers south of Hannover in Niedersachsen. Every bit as troubling, there does not appear to be any white knight in shining armor in her immediate future who is going to intervene and magically put an end to her travails.

Not a great deal has been publicly divulged about her past but at one time she did have not only a guardian but one with a garden for her to romp in as well. "Leider hatte dieser jedoch schon eine Freigänger-Katze, und die beiden vertrugen sich gar nicht," Kerstin Küster of Hände für Pfoten (HfP) told the Hannoverische Allgemeine on May 10th. (See "Sensible Tinka sucht ein ruhiges Zuhause.")

It therefore is most likely safe to assume that she did not last for very long in that particular home because it would be unusual, although not totally unheard of, for an individual to get rid of a longtime resident feline in favor of a newcomer. If that indeed were the case, it is entirely possible that she has been shuttled between multiple households during her lifetime.

Not surprisingly, by the time that she turned up at HfP in April of 2016 she was an emotional wreck. That was so much the case that she did not want anything to do with either the staffers or the other cats at the facility.

If she had had the Unglück to have ended up at almost any shelter in the Vereinigten Staaten, her lack of congeniality would have resulted in an almost certain death sentence. Mercifully, there are some shelters and individuals in this world who think and behave differently.

In Tinka's case, staffers at HfP turned her around, not by lavishing her with treats, but rather by "das olle, klebrige und ungepflegte Fell loszuwerden." After that, she slowly began to voluntarily leave her cage and to sit with the other cats.

It also was immensely helpful that HfP provides its feline inmates with a garden for their enjoyment. "Heute darf sie sogar, als einzige überhaupt, in den Garten," Küster added to the Hannoverische Allgemeine.

Even though the dedicated staff at HfP has worked wonders with her and she indeed has made remarkable progress since her arrival, the emotional scars engendered by her turbulent past are seldom far from the surface. "Sie ist eine sehr vorsichtige, ängestliche, sensible Katze, die schnell überfordert ist," Küster told the Hannoverische Allgemeine.

Given that she is not only quiet and sensible but also getting on in years, HfP would prefer to place her in a home with and elderly caretaker who is knowledgeable about cats. She would not fare well in a house full of loud, rambunctious, and obnoxious children but it is believed that she would get along fine with an elderly and quiet dog so long as it left her alone.

As far as other cats are concerned, the charity has been considerably less forthcoming on that matter and instead has only stated that they would not be essential for her happiness. Considering her past history, however, placing her in a home with other cats would be problematic at best.

Since she prizes her freedom and the great outdoors, a home with a garden would be crucial to her happiness. She accordingly needs a caretaker who is able to stay home with her and thus to stroke, treat, and groom her throughout the day.

In spite of her belated adjustment to life behind bars at HfP, the fact remains that a shelter is not a suitable domicile for most cats. "Wir schatzen sie auf mindstems Zehn Jahre, und es wäre so schön, wenn sie ein liebevolles Zuhause findet und nicht länger ihr Dasein im Tierschutz fristen muss," Küster summed up to the Hannovische Allgemeine.

Tinka's trials and tribulations also serve as a rather poignant reminder of just how far the care of cats still has to go before it can even begin to approach a level that could remotely be considered humane and compassionate. As things now stand, the world's treatment and thinking about them belongs in the Stone Age.

Most outrageous of all, the inalienable right of all cats and kittens to live remains outside the purview of the law. As a consequence, they continue to be annihilated in droves.

Even those fortunate enough to steer clear of society's killing fields often later fall victim to a lack of shelter, food, and veterinary care. C'est-à-dire, if they are not done in by the former, the latter is sooner or later sure to do the trick.

Even those cats blessed with owners do not fare all that much better. That is because, first of all, a large percentage of them are denied access to the great outdoors and instead are imprisoned for life in toxic and boring indoor environments.

Secondly, most of them nowadays are sterilized and even some of them are divested of their claws. Thirdly, their tiny bodies are invaded time and time again by greedy, unscrupulous veterinarians in order to administer unnecessary vaccinations as well as to implant often harmful microchips.

Fourthly and most egregious of all, once they become either elderly, sickly, or their presence is no longer desired, their owners simply pay veterinarians to whack them.

That long laundry list of simply outrageous cruelties and unconscionable abuse is old news, however. What Tinka's dilemma has focused attention on is mankind's totally inexcusable failure to even begin to acknowledge that all cats are individuals with different psychological makeups and histories.

Unless man can somehow be prevailed upon to stop looking down his crooked, disjointed schnoz at cats as only an aggregate of defenseless animals that he is at liberty to malign, exploit, abuse, and kill at will, little if any progress is ever going to be made in improving their lot in life. Au contraire, the naked abuse of the species is destined to continue unabated.

Through its willingness not only to spare Tinka's life but also to recognize her unique personality and history, HfP has taken an important first step on what is destined to be a long and winding road that will, hopefully, culminate in dramatically improving the lives of cats. It remains to be seen, however, just how many shelters and rescue groups are going to be willing to follow in its footsteps.

Finally, it goes almost without saying that Tinka would make a splendid addition to the life of any true lover of the species. For anyone still in need of convincing, it is important to remember that a loving and permanent home is nothing less than what she so richly deserves considering all the upheaval and turbulence that she she has been forced to endure.

Outfitted with the proper guardian and environment, it is beyond question that she soon would come out of her shell and blossom into the very special cat that she always has wanted to be if only the vicissitudes of life would have permitted. Anyone who therefore would be willing to offer Tinka a permanent home can contact HfP by telephone at 49-511-5101-58362 or by e-mail at info@haende-fuer-pfoten.net.

Photo: Kerstin Küster of Hände für Pfoten.

Monday, May 07, 2018

The English Authorities Steal, Kill, and Incinerate Nash Van Drake and in the Aftermath Lie Their Ugly Little Faces Off as to Their True Reason for Committing Such a Dastardly Deed

Nash Van Drake Was a Casualty of a New Cold War

"The cat did it again...Supposedly he (really no one knows what day) was brought to the Porton Down lab and then...drugged. Why drugged? The answer is the cat was 'stressed,' since he was 'not noticed' in the search. Is that what the United Kingdom does with pets? Is that normal practice?"
-- Maria Zakharova of the Russian Foreign Service

Whenever that diabolical monster known as man chooses to indulge himself in his insatiable greed, his unquenchable thirst for blood, and his never-ending will to dominate, which consumes most of his time and energies, it is always cats, other animals, and Mother Earth that are forced to bear the brunt of his evildoing. Unlike civilian casualties, who nowadays are lumped together underneath the belittling rubric of collateral damage, they are denied even that grudging tidbit of recognition; rather, they are relegated to the ranks of the uncounted and unmourned whose lives and habitats count for absolutely nothing.

With that being the case, it is not the least bit surprising that the English authorities have killed off Sergei and Yulia Skripal's long-haired black Persian, Nash Van Drake, and their two unidentified guinea pigs. Whereas the near fatal poisoning of the double agent and his daughter with the nerve agent novichok in Salisbury, one-hundred-forty-two kilometers south of London in Wiltshire, on March 4th has attracted worldwide interest and condemnation, it is in keeping with the Zeitgeist that the killings of Nash and the guinea pigs have gone largely unnoticed outside of England and Russia. Even what little information that has leaked out of the former has been elliptical, contradictory, nonsensical and, in some respects, patently untruthful.

Nonetheless, as best the story can be pieced together from the slipshod reporting of the government's lackeys on Fleet Street, the Skripals lived in a brick compound that they shared with Nash and another unidentified cat that they reportedly adopted from a local shelter. In at least one press report, Nash is referred to as Masyanya, which is the name of a female protagonist in a popular web-based Russian cartoon series.

It therefore could be that the second cat is a female who bears that moniker in that it would be odd for the Skripals to have bestowed a girl's name upon a tomcat. That is strictly conjecture, however.

They also owned a black dog and the aforementioned pair of guinea pigs. (See the Daily Mail, April 5, 2018, "Russian Spy's Cat Was Secretly Put Down: Vets Killed 'Distressed' Black Persian and Found Two Guinea Pigs Dead at Sergei Skripal's Home after Poison Attack.")

The dog allegedly was later found at an undisclosed location outside the compound but nothing has been divulged about the second cat. Even if they initially were able to have survived the horrifying events of March 4th and their immediate aftermath, that does not mean that they are still alive today.

After the Skripals were discovered unconscious on a park bench and rushed to Salisbury District Hospital their compound was sealed by the authorities and declared to be off limits to the public. It never has been definitively stated one way or the other if the authorities initially were aware of the presence of Nash and the other animals.

Nash and Yulia Skripal

Even if they were in the dark, the Skripals' longtime veterinarian, fifty-six-year-old Howard Taylor of The Vets at 123 Exeter Street, quickly remedied that situation. "We (sic) phoned the police on day one to offer to help if they needed it," he averred to The Sun on March 17th. (See "Russian Spy Sergei Skripal's Pet Cat and Guinea Pigs Are Taken Away for Tests.") "I thought it unlikely the police would have gone to the house and not done anything."

That certainly turned out to have been true enough in that what they did was to seize them and transport them to the Ministry of Defense's ultra-secretive Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) in the village of Porton, eleven kilometers north of Salisbury, where they were promptly killed and their corpses burned to ashes. Although it surely must have known almost immediately of that tragic dénouement, it was not until April 5th that The Sun finally got around to cluing in the reading public as to what had transpired. (See "Russian Spy Sergei Skripal's Cat Is the First Fatality after Nerve Agent Attack in Salisbury.")

In an amateurish attempt designed to justify their commission of such appalling atrocities, the English elites and their stooges on Fleet Street have presented two contradictory explanations. For instance in its April 5th report, The Sun claims that Nash was "very unwell" and "severely malnourished."

A day later on April 6th, The Independent chimed in by declaring that he was "in a distressed state" and in "so much pain that a vet decided to put it (sic) down." The paper further alleges that the guinea pigs died of dehydration. (See "Russia Implies United Kingdom Destroyed Poisoned Spy Sergei Skripal's Cat and Guinea Pigs to 'Remove Important Witnesses'.")

Knowing the timeline of events would be helpful in unraveling this conundrum but even without that vital piece of information neither scenario put forward by either the government or Fleet Street stands up to even cursory scrutiny. Still, for whatever it is worth, The Sun reported on April 5th that the authorities broke into the Skripals' compound "shortly after the March 4th attack" whereupon they discovered the presence of, at least, Nash and the guinea pigs.

Yet, both contingents of professional liars would have the outside world to believe that Nash already was "severely malnourished." That does not make any sense at all given that the Skripals are dedicated cat-lovers and have money to burn.

Plus, The Sun earlier on March 17th had reported that Nash was valued at £1,500 and that the Skripals had shelled out thousands more in order to ship him from Moscow to Salisbury. That exorbitant tally sans doute included thousand of pounds in quarantine fees that the English ridiculously charge all foreigners who import their cats. (See Cat Defender post of August 18, 2008 entitled "Ronaldo Escapes Death after a Retailer Coughs Up the Exorbitant Bounty That Quarantine Officials Had Placed on His Head.")

Nash and the Guinea Pigs

In spite of all of that, the arrogant English elites and Fleet Street contend that the Skripals not only starved Nash to death but allowed their guinea pigs to die of thirst. Given that it is a violation of law to neglect animals, the authorities should have brought charges against the Skripals if they had truly believed that had been the case. It additionally is odd that they also would not have neglected their second cat and their dog in a similar fashion.

It is difficult to know exactly what to make of the authorities' allegation that Nash was "very unwell," "in a distressed state," and in "pain" because so little is known about novichok. As far as it has been disclosed, however, in this particular case only a small amount of it was found on the doorknob of the Skripals' front portal and it was in a liquid form.

"In this instance, direct contact is required for a person to (be) poisoned," a spokesman for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) told The Independent on April 17th. (See "Nerve Agent Used to Poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal Was Delivered in 'Liquid Form,' Says DEFRA.") "Only a small proportion of the material is transferred in each contact and the substance is diluted in each secondary or tertiary contact."

That would tend to indicate that since Nash was confined indoors he did not at any time come into direct contact with the novichok that had been smeared on the doorknob. He possibly could have inhaled a lethal amount of it as the Skripals were leaving the house but that, too, seems a bit far-fetched.

"The class of nerve agent does not produce significant vapor or gas and can only be moved between sites by direct transfer from a contaminated person or by moving a contaminated item," the spokesman for DEFRA continued to The Independent.

Based upon the limited amount of information available, it is difficult to say with one-hundred per cent certainty, but it nevertheless appears that the authorities' claims about Nash being "distressed" and in "pain" were nothing more than big, fat, self-serving lies. If so, they murdered him without just cause and in cold blood.

They did so simply because he, and the guinea pigs as well, had been found at the site of a nerve agent attack. Their death warrants likewise were probably initialed without the benefit of either thorough veterinary examinations or a finding of contamination. That it turn makes it highly improbable that the authorities have spared the lives of the Skripals' other cat and their black dog.

What Has Become of Yulia's Unidentified Dog?

For its part, the English government has served up a proverbial feast of balderdash for the world to slobber over until it chokes. "When a vet was able to access the property, two guinea pigs had sadly died. A cat was also found in a distressed state and a decision was taken by a veterinary surgeon to euthanize the animal to alleviate its suffering," an unidentified governmental mouthpiece ballyhooed to The Independent on April 6th. "The decision was taken in the best interests of the animal and its welfare."

If that should by any chance sound familiar it is because it is the same old malarkey that all cat killers hide behind regardless of whether they be veterinarians, shelter operators, governmental officials, or even the victims' owners. C'est-à-dire, most cats, the young as well as the old and the healthy as well as the sickly, are better off dead as far as those rotters are concerned.

The veterinarian who killed Nash has not been publicly identified but presumably it was not Taylor. Even so, Old Taylor Thing comes away from this sorry affair smelling more like sulphur than a rose.

"He (Skripal) used The Vets for, some years and I had seen his cats and his guinea pigs," he candidly admitted to The Sun on March 17th. In spite of that lengthy relationship, Taylor never forged any moral or professional bonds with the doomed animals in that there is not so much as a scintilla of evidence in the public record to even suggest that he interceded on their behalves.

Au contraire, he ratted them out to their assassins and then stood idly by and watched as they were liquidated. If, by contrast, he had given so much as a rat's ass about their welfare and inalienable right to live he would have, if necessary, gone to court in order to have saved their lives.

So far, the high-muck-a-mucks from Downing Street have gotten away scot-free with their hideous crimes but they have not succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of Maria Zakharova of the Russian Foreign Ministry. "According to the publication, the guinea pigs and the cat were cremated," she told The Independent in the April 6th article cited supra. "In other words destroyed, although the animals could be important evidence in the poisoning case."

From that demarcation point she went on to give the hypocritical, lying English the dressing down that they so richly deserved. "The cat did it again...Supposedly he (really no one knows what day) was brought to the Porton Down lab and then...drugged. Why drugged?" she speculated to The Independent. "The answer is the cat was 'stressed,' since he was 'not noticed' in the search. Is that what the United Kingdom does with pets? Is that normal practice?"

The answer to both of her rhetorical questions is an emphatic yes. First of all, although they publicly claim to be big fans of the species, they actually care very little for cats and that is exhibited by the large number of them that they callously and inexcusably turn loose in the street every day to be mowed down by their equally ailurophobic fellow motorists.

The Skripals' Compound

Secondly, the English's disdain for cats and other animals was most recently demonstrated in June of last year when Grenfell Tower in West London went up in flames and killed dozens of its residents. Yet to this very day neither the authorities nor Fleet Street have publicly acknowledged how many cats and other animals perished in the inferno. (See Cat Defender post of July 3, 2017 entitled "Paucho Somehow Made It Out of Grenfell Tower Alive but the Fate of the Dozens of Cats That Resided at the High-Rise Firetrap Remains Shrouded in Secrecy.")

Thirdly, even when the English do take an active interest in the welfare of cats it usually is only in order to satisfy their own narrow, self-interest and that petit fait is nowhere more readily observable than in the exploitative behavior of the politicians who reside and work on Downing Street. For instance, it certainly did not take Tony and Cherie Blair long to give the boot to Humphrey. (See Cat Defender post of April 6, 2006 entitled "Humphrey, the Cat from 10 Downing Street Who Once 'Read' His Own Obituary, Passes Away at Age Eighteen.")

Sybil, who was owned by Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, was quickly given the bum's rush by the cat-hating Gordon Brown only to die tragically a short time later in exile. (See Cat Defender posts of September 19, 2007 and August 13, 2009 entitled, respectively, "After a Dreary Ten-Year Absence, Number 10 Downing Street Has a New Resident Feline and Her Name Is Sybil" and "Sybil, 10 Downing Street's Former First Feline, Dies Unexpectedly from an Undisclosed Illness.")

Larry arrived at 10 Downing Street in early 2011 but he enjoyed at best a lukewarm relationship with David Cameron. (See Cat Defender posts of July 21, 2011, November 28, 2011, and August 1, 2016 entitled, respectively, "Larry Faces Many Challenges and Dangers in His New Rôle as 10 Downing Street's Resident Feline," "Larry Is Persevering as Best He Can Despite Being Constantly Maligned by Both Fleet Street and the Prime Minister's Duplicitous Staff," and "Unmercifully Maligned and Treated Like Dirty for So Many Years, Larry Nevertheless Manages to Stick Around Long Enough in Order to See the Last of David Cameron and His Uncaring Family.")

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne turned Freya loose to roam the dangerously congested streets of Whitehall at all hours of the night with predictably life-threatening results until he finally got rid of her for good. (See Cat Defender posts of November 10, 2014 and November 13, 2014 entitled, respectively, "Freya, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resident Feline, Cheats Death Once Again When She Survives Being Mowed Down and Injured by a Motorist but Her Good Luck Cannot Last for Much Longer" and "Gutless Georgie 'Porgie' Osborne Gets Rid of Freya but in Doing So Lies About the True Reason Behind His Second Cruel Abandonment of Her.")

More recently, the Foreign Affairs Office has added Palmerston to its staff and current Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, now has Gladstone. (See Cat Defender posts of August 8, 2016 and August 17, 2016 entitled, respectively, "Palmerston Is Recruited for a Prestigious Post in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service but Then Disgracefully Relegated to Makeshift Living Quarters Out in the Cold" and "Gladstone Joins Larry and Palmerston as Whitehall's Latest Resident Feline but the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Welsh Terrier, Rex, Is Waiting in the Wings to Put an End to All of Them.")

Shortly thereafter, Evie and her son, Ossie, joined the staff of the Cabinet Office at 70 Whitehall Street. (See The Telegraph, December 9, 2016, "New Cats Evie and Ossie Join Westminster Moggies as Cabinet Office Mousers" and The Sun, December 9, 2016, "Meow-ing Street Number 10 Brings in Two New Cats, Evie and Ossie, to Help Catch Mice in the Cabinet Office.")

As was the case with Taylor's abandonment of Nash and the guinea pigs, the presence of no fewer than five resident felines at the heart of the English government has failed to instill any sense of either a common morality or an appreciation of their intrinsic worth in the politicians. Rather, they simply use and exploit them as convenient and inexpensive public relations' props in order to make  themselves appear to be something other than the miserable rotters and moral degenerates that they are in reality.

Yulia and Sergei Skripal Lived High on the Hog

That is not merely a pedestrian prejudice but rather it is an opinion that is shared by former MI6 spy and current bestselling novelist, John le Carré. Here, for instance, is what his fictional spymaster George Smiley had to say about the entire lot of them in The Secret Pilgrim:
"The privately educated Englishman is the greatest dissembler on earth. No one will charm you so glibly, disguise his feelings from you better, cover his tracks more skillfully, or find it harder to confess that he's been a damned fool. No one acts braver when he's frightened stiff or happier when he's miserable. And nobody will flatter you better when he hates you than an extrovert Englishman or woman."

With the Skripals hardly being in any condition to complain about what was done to Nash and their guinea pigs, that task has fallen by default to none other than PETA. "These deaths are another tragedy of this horrific situation, and this time, the British authorities are evidently to blame," the organization's Elisa Allen gingerly ventured to The Independent on April 6th. (See "'United Kingdom Authorities to Blame' for 'Tragic' Death of Sergei Skripal's Pets in Sealed Home, PETA Says.") "No one should have left these animals sealed inside the house any more than they would have done children -- clearly, they should have been rescued."

The organization accordingly is demanding action. PETA is "calling for an investigation to be carried out in order to determine how this was allowed to happen and (to) ensure that procedures are put in place to prevent any such loss of lives -- which were valued by the Skripals and the animals themselves -- from ever happening again," she concluded.

To say that those sentiments are more than a tad ironic would be to grossly understate the case. For example, PETA not only kills practically every cat that it gets its blood-drenched hands on but it insists over and over again that the lives of all homeless cats do not have any value whatsoever.

Much more to the point, it surely would have killed Nash and the Skripals' other animals if it had gotten to them ahead of the goons from Downing Street. (See Cat Defender posts of January 29, 2007, February 9, 2007, October 7, 2011, and August 24, 2017 entitled, respectively, "PETA's Long History of Killing Cats and Dogs Is Finally Exposed in a North Carolina Courtroom," "Verdict in PETA Trial: Littering Is a Crime but Not the Mass Slaughter of Innocent Cats and Dogs," "PETA Traps and Kills a Cat and Then Shamelessly Goes Online in Order to Brag about its Criminal and Foul Deed," and "The Brutal Murders of a Trio of Atlantic City's Boardwalk Cats Provide an Occasion for the Local Rag and PETA to Whoop It Up and to Break Open the Champagne.")

The Independent's solicitation of PETA's hypocritical two cents' worth does demonstrate, however, that the capitalist media not only sucks up to those in power but also to phony-baloney animal rights groups as well. As it knows only too well, Ingrid E. Newkirk and her minions never have done anything even remotely positive for cats and they certainly do not speak for them and their supporters in any shape, form, or fashion.

The only thing constructive that can be said for the organization is that it has demonstrated the gumption to take the English establishment to task over the killings of Nash and the guinea pigs and that is considerably more than can be said for any other animal rights group located in Angleterre. It is even conceivable that the Skripals' second cat was adopted from Cats Protection's branch in Salisbury but yet that organization has not had anything to say about either her or the killing of Nash.

The Skripals Had a Busy Day on March 4th

Yulia was released from the hospital several weeks ago and is said to be convalescing at an undisclosed location somewhere in England. Her father remains hospitalized but he is said to be in stable condition.

Besides the Skripals' house, Zizzi, an Italian restaurant at 1/3 Castle Street, Bishops Mill Pub at 7 The Maltings, the entire Maltings shopping center, the residence of detective sergeant Nick Bailey, two sites near the Bourne Hill Police Station, a pair of ambulance stations, and a car compound are still designated as possibly being contaminated with novichok. No arrests have been made in this case and that task has been made all the more difficult by the Russians' demolition of a factory in Shikhany, nine-hundred-sixty-five kilometers south of Moscow, which is believed to have manufactured the novichok that was used in order to poison the Skripals. (See the Express, April 29, 2018, "Russia Destroys Novichok Nerve Center Ahead of Salisbury Poison Spy Probe.")

Despite the English's reprehensible killing of Nash and the guinea pigs, there does not appear to be much doubt that the Russians were behind the attack upon the Skripals. There is "no alternative explanation about who was responsible -- only Russia has the means, motive and record," an official from the Foreign Office on Downing Street declared to The Independent in the April 17th article cited supra.

By past record, that official was referring to the murder of defector Alexander Litvinenko in the Bloomsbury section of London back in 2006 by a pair of Russian spies. In his case, however, it was not novichok but rather a cup of radioactive tea that was his undoing.

With establishments such as Claridge's in Mayfair commanding as much as £60 for a spot of tea with a finger sandwich thrown in for good measure, that is another good reason to refrain from doing any cupping while in London. If the Russians do not poison a person to death, the exorbitant prices are sure to do the trick.

Then there is the matter of the simply outrageously lengthy and expensive quarantine requirements that the authorities impose upon visiting cats to consider when contemplating a trip to England. Taken altogether, however, being stripped of one's cat and not being able to afford the price of a cup of tea combine to make the island nation an unappealing tourist destination.

The superficial conclusion to be drawn from the events of March 4th and their aftermath is that the Russians do not have any regard for human life whereas their English counterparts are equally depraved when it comes to the lives of cats and other animals. Such an assessment is far too charitable, however, in that neither of the belligerents actually has very much regard for the sanctity of life period.

Nash Van Drake's Cathouse Is Now Vacant and Destined to Remain So

For example, although the Russians may not have intended for any harm to have come to Nash and the guinea pigs, by smearing novichok on the Skripals' front door they set in motion a chain of events that led precisely to that dénouement. Even worse, their alleged supplying of the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus with chemical weapons has unquestionably led to the horrific deaths of untold numbers of cats and other animals as well as the contamination of the environment.

In its quest to conquer the world, England historically never has demonstrated much regard for human rights. Rather, its empire builders have systematically subjugated, exploited, and annihilated nation after nation.

In doing so, the filth that it has expelled from its shores have committed some of the most diabolical crimes on record against cats and other animals in places such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the south Atlantic. (See Cat Defender post of November 18, 2016 entitled "A Clever Devil at the University of Adelaide Boasts That He Has Discovered the Achilles' Heel of Cats with His Invention of Robotic Grooming Traps as the Thoroughly Evil Australians' All-Out War Against the Species Enters Its Final Stages.")

In the final accounting, however, the crimes that man commits against the animals and the environment are far more egregious than those that he perpetrates against his fellows. That is principally the case because most men are capable, at least to some extent, of not only anticipating but also of defending themselves against the aggressions of their fellows but that is hardly the case with the animals and Mother Earth.

Consequently, if that were not the case, it perhaps would be à propos to conclude that the English and Russians richly deserve each other and to leave the matter at that; a bon chat, bon rat and may the most ruthless one of them prevail. Other considerations, however, preclude such ambivalence, even if in the end they are destined not to make one whit of difference.

As far as Nash's faceless and nameless executioners are concerned, there is not so much as a prayer in Hell that any of them ever will be publicly identified, let alone arrested, prosecuted, and punished. Abusing and killing cats never has been taken even halfway seriously anywhere and least of all by the English and their ignoble progeny.

With that being the sad reality, there is little left to do other than to mourn the killing of such a handsome cat. He had his whole life ahead of him and so much to look forward to as well as to give to this world.

Almost as heartbreaking, all that the Skripals have been left with are, to quote songwriter Jim Croce, their photographs and memories. In keeping with their uncharitable character, the cutthroat English did not leave them with even so much as a tiny speck of him to memorialize and bury.

Photos: The Mirror (Nash), Facebook (Nash and Yulia, Nash and the guinea pigs, and Sergei and Yulia drinking), The Sun (Yulia's dog, the Skripals' compound, itinerary, and Nash in his cathouse).