It's a strange component of our animal rights laws that laws against harming an animal only apply if that animal is owned. The court case - which would put Stevenson in jail for two years if convicted - centers around whether 'Mamma Cat' was indeed 'owned' by the toll booth operator.

As the case drew near, 'cat's rights activists' increased their belligerance towards Mr. Stevenson, many calling for him to be rifled down for his crimes against the world, others imagining his death. Others advocated shooting down birds in retribution. The whole thing seemed silly, but it was also scary, because the jury on this case was leaning towards condemning Stevenson to two years in jail.

Of course, in America, killing feral animals is important for maintaining the animal's own welfare. We are even considering allowing hunting of the reintroduced wolf populations in our northern states - to help the population.

But the cat people in this case - advocating violence towards both humans and birds, seem to have little on their mind but the poor cat, which suffered. But cats suffer more when they go feral, and for this cat rights advocates might be more to blame than anyone else. This is especially so since so much of the millions spent annually on their welfare goes towards the frivolous side of 'cat's rights.' - shouldn't cat's rights people be focusing on the feral cats problem? It is of tantamount importance not only to the cats, but to ecology in general - to the survival of species.

A mistrial at the Stevenson case came. The jurors seemed to think the whole thing was silly. They couldn't decide his fate. The prosecutors announced they would not retry the case. Stevenson went free.

On the internet, cat's rights activists lamented the fact that Stevenson was being hailed as responsible for bringing attention to the country's feral cat problem.

And the Piping Plovers, they persist, in their ever decreasing numbers.