Federal US law being considered to ban eating your cat

The law is messy in this area but in general it is legal for a person to kill their cat and eat him/her. Or it might be an unowned cat.

It is illegal for commercial enterprises (slaughter houses) to kill cats and dogs. But things are going to change I hear from the Bloomberg website. I can hear people thinking ‘and about time too!’

At present in the US some people do eat cat meat as they do in China and Vietnam. It is rare but it happens and it’s legal. Bloomberg says that it occurs among some immigrant groups. They probably mean Chinese or Vietnamese immigrants.

So, great news. It’s going to stop provided the law making process proceeds as intended. Violators on conviction can be fined and sent to prison for a year.

The Humane Society of the United States has been campaigning on this for a while.

The law will be introduced by an amendment to the existing Animal Welfare Act (I don’t have the date of this particular act, sorry). The amendment bans people from ‘knowingly slaughtering a dog or cat for human consumption’.

The proposer of the amendment is the Republican Representative Jeff Denham of California. California are debating banning cat declawing and 8 cities already ban declawing. They are into animal welfare and lead the country in this area of the law.

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

18 thoughts on “Federal US law being considered to ban eating your cat”

  1. People keep pigs for pets today, many do; do you now make it an incarcerable punishment for eating pork-chops?

    People keep chickens for pets today, many do; do you now make it an incarcerable punishment for eating a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken or use eggs in any recipes or meals?

    People keep goats for pets today, many do; do you now make it an incarcerable punishment for hosting a goat-roast?

    People keep fish for pets today, many do; do you now make it an incarcerable punishment for baking some fish-sticks or purchasing that McFish sandwich or buying cat-foods made from fish?

    People keep ______ for pets today, many do; do you now make it an incarcerable punishment for ______ as a food source for yourselves and your pets?

    I’m wondering just what drives your thinking that it’s okay to kill one animal kept as pets to feed yourselves and your pets but not another species of animal kept as pets. Where, why, and how do you draw the distinction.

    • The answer is straightforward and simple. I agree that the animals that you mention can sometimes, rarely, be pets. However, the domestic cat is the most popular pet in the USA. You know that. There are an estimated 90 million domestic cats in the US. It is a completely different order of popularity. This is the reason and to be honest you know it. Your argument simply does not hold water. You are taking an absolute black-and-white stance when politics, and this is about politicians making decisions on behalf of the electorate, is not black-and-white.

      • You are spreading biased misinformation. Cats are not the most popular pet in the USA. Just because 1 out of every 7 or more cat-owners have 10 or more cats does not make them more popular by the number of owned cats. Fewer households want cats than dogs.

        USA statistics:
        Percent of households owning Dpgs 36.5% Cats 30.4%
        Number of households owning Dogs 43,346,000 Cats 36,117,000
        Average number owned per household Dogs 1.6 Cats 2.1
        Total number in United States Dogs 69,926,000 Cats 74,059,000

        You’re still not answering my questions, where do you draw the line and how do you define that line? When 10% of the households own pet-pigs (a very very popular pet today), when 20% own pigs for beloved pets? How many households have to own pigs for pets before you throw everyone in jail for eating ham on Easter?

        • You know and I know that there is a very fine balance between the popularity of cats and dogs. The general consensus is that cats are today more popular than dogs by a small margin. So please don’t bandy around a whole pile of statistics. I know the statistics. I don’t need teaching about them.

          What questions am I failing to answer? What do you mean by “Where do you draw the line and how do you define that line?”

          Please remember that I’m reading your comments from database and not from the page itself so I am not looking at the entire thread. I do this because I have to work quickly. Just remind me and don’t insult me.

          • Database? How can I remember what I’ve never been told. If you can’t be bothered to read and reply to a discussion in context, then no wonder you look like such an idiot to the world whenever you reply to anyone.

            • I don’t look an idiot and your comments are so abjectly boring that I simply can’t be bothered to read all of them. In fact when I read your comments I skim them very quickly. To do any more would be a complete waste of my time.

      • By your reasoning, by “number of owned pets” defining popularity, then people who keep aquariums full of dozens and dozens of fish (some by the hundreds) are defining the very most popular pet of all, by far.

        Should we throw you in jail for a year and fine you $1,000 for each time you are found guilty of eating fishsticks or feeding fish to your cat? By your number of owned pets “popularity” reasoning as the justification, then yes, we should, even before people are thrown in prison for eating cats. You are guilty of murdering the most “popular” pet of all if you eat fish. Not many households with children have gone by that haven’t kept at least 1 goldfish at some time. And that’s not even counting how many hundreds of fish that individual pet-owners keep throughout their lifetimes. Fish are, with no contest, the most popular pet of all. Let’s throw all fish-eaters, and those who feed fish to their cats, in jail and throw away the key. Right? By your reasoning that is just and fair, even more fair than throwing cat-eaters in jail.

        • It’s more than about numbers. You know that as well. You are desperately trying to find an argument but it does not stack up. You cannot equate fish to domestic cats in this argument because it is much harder to interact with fish than it is with domestic cats.

          As it is much harder to interact with fish they cannot be said to be on the same level in terms of bonding and companionship than is the case between humans and domestic cats. You are making a false argument and you always do this. I think you know you’re making a rubbish argument but you will do anything to denigrate the domestic cat and to have the domestic cat eradicated from the planet.

          And you don’t recognise the fact that I think there are too many domestic cats and I think there are too many people who are irresponsible in terms of ownership of domestic cats. I have said this before in previous comments years ago.

          I don’t defend the domestic cat blindly. I am critical of people such as breeders and irresponsible cat owners. I advocate cat confinement and in general I disagree with people who let their cats roam freely.

          You fail to recognise this but they indicate that I am taking a very balanced view and and thoughtful about the domestic cat. I do not defend blindly as I said.

          • So now your tactic is to move the goal-posts. Now it’s about how deeply people bond with their pets. The same depth of bonding can be found in those who keep pigs, chickens, and cows for pets, some people who keep fish bond with their fish in the same way. That argument of yours falls flat on its face too. And your absurd deflections are never going to win any argument. I guess what they say about you is right, it’s clear why you failed at your chosen legal profession so long ago. You can’t win any argument with anyone unless they fall for your lame and childish tricks.

            • “clear why you failed at your chosen legal profession”

              You do not know a thing about what I did as a solicitor. So this is just a nasty insult.

              If all you can do is insult me without any evidence then I will have to terminate these conversations.

    • Pigs, chickens, goats, horses, cows, and many others are deemed farm animals even though a few people have them as pets. Farm animals have been cultivated and harvested for food since the beginning of mankind. The same for fish. Except fish have to be a minimum size before it’s legal for consumption.

      Cats and dogs were domesticated as working companions for people. Cats keep rodent populations down. Dogs help with herding, defense, hunting, etc. Eating them is the same as eating a member of your family or a fellow employee.

      • There are huge countries that raise cats for human consumption. Why are you right and they are wrong? Should we throw you in jail for eating a McBurger or feeding beef cat-food to your pets because the whole population of India sees you and anyone like you as an inhumane barbarian for doing so?

        • You are referring to China basically and China has no animal welfare laws whatsoever. Zero, zilch, nada. That is the level of animal welfare in China where they eat cats in the south. It is not widespread but it happens in the south in a province there. They are obviously completely wrong to do it. The Chinese are vilified internationally for their brutal killing of domestic and feral cats for human consumption in the South. It is not just me and associates of mine who hate this practice. It is millions of other people. If you can’t see that the I feel sorry for you.

          The lack of animal welfare law tells you about their relationship with animals. The Chinese pretty well exterminated the tiger in their country. Another example of their crass attitude towards animal welfare and wildlife conservation. I could go on but I am too bored to discuss the matter with you.

  2. Thank you for covering this topic, Michael. I recently learned that it is not illegal for private citizens to eat companion animals here in the United States. I was horrified. I signed a petition regarding this matter. The law needs to ban consuming companion animals by anyone, private or business. This is just common sense.

    • Yes, thank you Frances, I have exactly the same thoughts. When I first discovered the “lacuna” (a legal term to mean a hole) with respect to an individual killing and eating a cat I was as surprised as you were. Thankfully it seems that this legal hole is about to be filled up.

    • Well, there goes all those farmers and ranchers and their 4-H kids and organizations teaching everyone how to raise cattle and pigs and lambs as pets to be consumed for your weekend rural barbecues. Oh, and there goes all your cans and boxes of beef, pork and poultry flavored cat-foods too. Yep, great “common sense”. I need to sign that petition too. It’ll eventually mean the end of all companion animals and all animal-flesh foods for both pets and humans.

      • Not likely. Food animals will never get complete legal pet status for too many reasons.

        Sad that you are misinformed about the 4-H. They don’t raise pets. They raise food animals. The shows are for farmers wanting to improve their flocks/herds. Maybe you should be a little better informed before ranting?

        • Cat’s Meow, you might get a response from this person. He is not the person you think he is. He is a cat hating troll in my opinion and he may start to insult you. I am just telling you to warn you.


Leave a Comment

follow it link and logo