10/23/2026
We stand with the cats that wait at the edge of society, hoping for help, and we support the people who come to feed them. It is no offense to feed a hungry animal, yet many places are treating this behavior as a crime.
See, what the caretakers really do: They purchase the food, lay the traps, often pay all the veterinary bills, take the frightened cats to surgery, and then return them to the area that they are familiar with. After everyone else has left for home, they remain and look after the cats. The operations for spaying and neutering, the vaccinations, and the treatment of illness and injury all count as healthcare, and the caretakers provide it. Since the cats are sterilized, they cease having one litter after another, and the problem of too many kittens is thus reduced as a result of this care. Moreover, because they get to see each cat personally, they notice signs such as a limp, a cough, or a weeping eye a lot earlier than anyone else would.
Consider how the lawmakers have replied: they have introduced fines, bans, and rules which hold the person with the food bowl responsible. A ban on feeding won't cause a cat to vanish. A cat that is not being given a regular meal becomes more difficult to locate, more difficult to catch, more difficult to treat, and is more likely to suffer. Killing cats doesn't solve the problem either, since other cats then move into the area and the cycle begins all over again. Only care will ever break the cycle.
Then who is to blame? Not the cats, not the caretakers. The issue lies in a system that penalizes compassion and is unwilling to provide funding for the kind of work which brings about the greatest good; it is easier to excuse passing by a starving animal than it is to stop and feed it, and we reject that.
The rule cannot become more humane just because it has been approved by a vote. We must protect the cats and also those people who look after them. Kindness should never be made a criminal offense.
