You're viewing a single thread.
Cat owners who let their cats roam are irresponsible and entitled
That is like saying all dogs should always be leashed and muzzled when outside.
Yeah, one wonders how they survived until we came along.
Cats survived before us by hunting small mammals and small birds, and they are very effective at getting fed.
The motivation at the core of naming owners of outdoor cats as irresponsible is a sharp decline in songbird populations in direct proportion to the increase in outdoor cat population.
Cats survived before us by hunting small mammals and small birds, and they are very effective at getting fed.
And, conversely, the prey evolved to avoid cats. So it is only a problem if you take cats to a place that historically did not have them. In fact, removing a predator from an ecosystem it used to keep under check can be just as devastating as introducing a foreign species.
Literally nowhere historically has had cats. Wild cats existed in Northern Africa/Mediterranean regions about 10 to 15 thousand years ago and were from there spread by human agricultural revolution to be introduced throughout Egypt, Rome, and then Roman Colonies as well as Asia, and some thousands of years later they exist on every continent except Antarctica.
The tiny speck of area and population that they should naturally have is like a grain of sand on a beach compared to the destructive force they have become.
Literally nowhere? What absolute bollocks.
Cats moved across a land bridge to the UK over 9000 years ago, long before the Romans had anything to do with it.
F. Silvestris, the European Wildcat, is generally considered a separate lineage from domesticated cats, though somewhat capable of crossbreeding, and because of human introduction of domestic cats the Scottish Wildcat in particular is functionally extinct in the wild. Just one of many great examples of the destructive nature of this pet and human negligence.
We should consider the centuries of persecution by humans and the severe habit loss.
"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, then it's not a big deal. And if it is, then it's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did... You deserved it."
As you yourself said, cats have been living across most of Africa, Asia and Europe for over a thousand years. So unless you are talking about Australia, the Americas, or a few corners of the old world, cats are either native or naturalised enough that they are now a part of the ecosystem.
A thousand years is nothing to an ecosystem. Birds have been migrating across Europe, Asia, and the Americas for hundreds of millions of years, only to get slaughtered in droves by furry shit machines.
It depends on the ecosystem. Pollution famously caused certain moths to shift from being mostly light-coloured to mostly dark-coloured in a matter of years. The removal and reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone caused observable changes in prey behaviour within a decade or so. Of course longer-lived species like trees take much longer to adapt, but we're talking about birds, geckos and rodents here.
Edit: Also, most geckos, birds and rodents are r-strategists, meaning they are limited more by food than by predation.
I don't think the introduction of thousands of F. Catus to any local ecosystem will have anything other than dire consequences.
Introduction of a new predator will disturb the ecosystem. Removal of an existing predator will also disturb the ecosystem.
The absolute brain-dead mentality of the people who will just downvote anything that doesn't fit their predetermined conclusion.
There's no evidence of this. Pet cats mostly take weakened or frail prey.
Another middle school drop out
Brilliant comment!
This thread is for debate. No one cares that you disagree with me personally unless you actually have a point to make.
Gonna need to speak with an adult, it feels weird dunking on someone who hasnt taken a high school biology class
Songbirds should die
Wheres your parent? This is an adult conversation
The danger isn't to the cats, it's to everything else. Ecologically speaking, cats are an invasive apex predator. They absolutely wreak havoc on local bird populations.
Cats aren't apex predators. But yes, they can be quite damaging in araes where they are invasive.
Not in the wild, but in a suburban neighborhood they are. Apex is relative to what else is out there.
They are still mesopredators. A big bird of prey, a coyote, or a fox wouldn't mind going for a cat.
But it's not even relevant for the discussion whether they are apex predators or not. They are efficient predators and the artificial high number of individuals is harmful for the ecosystem.
You're uninformed. Cats co-evolved with humans to serve a job (pest control, in exchange for safety and the occasional bit of food). There have only been fully indoor cats for a few hundred years. Not all cats have to have a job, but some WANT one, just like dogs. We should let them.
My cat is angry with me if I don't let him spend at least 12 hours a day roaming and catching bugs and mice. He has neighbor cat friends that he goes to see. Why would I deprive him of that?
I think we have different definitions of irresponsible or entitled behavior if you think giving the cat what it wants or otherwise doing whatever our selfish uninformed ancestors did is the correct option.
You should deprive your invasive manmade predator the option to kill local wildlife for sport because the local ecosystem takes irreparable damage every time a species goes extinct due to human incompetence. Cats naturally belonged to a small region of northern Africa and the Mediterranean before humans spread them across the entire earth and let their population boom from hundreds to hundreds of millions.
Yes, as we all know cats never went outside before they were domesticated by humans...
You think cats could sail? Then youre definitely stupid enough to let it roam outdoors
Yeah, actually, that's accurate. Cats generally stick to a small territory, lots of studies show this behavior to be consistent. The spread of domestic cats has always been understood to coalesce with the spread of human agriculture.
mmmmmega akshully vibes
Ah yes, those damned educated people making choices that are beneficial to themselves and others. NEEEEEEERRRRRRRDDDSSSSS~!!!
after finding it quite surprising that folks here feel so strongly about forcing such a depressing life on highly independent creatures, I decided to look for the evidence myself.
sure enough, it's not as clear as you all think. one of the problems with the research is that it is incorrectly applied to all environments without merit. and the biggest issue of all is that most of the problem is caused by feral cats.
so no, your absolute position that all cats must be indoors only is not fully supported by evidence. furthermore it is alarming how quick people are to impose their beliefs on other creatures with only a small amount of reason.
If you don't enforce indoor only cats with high precision then feral cats exist everywhere as a result.
Literally no environment benefits from thousands of fucking cats.
You will look for any excuse to avoid the guilt of our failures as a species.
owning pets isn't about maximizing environmental benefits. your own existence is a much larger problem for that but no one is telling you to live your entire life in a boring box because we have too many humans. this hill is not important enough to warrant all you folks dying on it.
If some people can't minimize harm to the environment (and as a result, harm done to countless other people) then those people need their rights restricted. That's the fundamental nature of laws: if you fuck it up for the rest of us then we're going to have to step in.
which apparently doesn't extend to harming cats by way of imprisonment.
Tbf right or wrong the way you come across makes you sound like a dick. Though it's probably the autism
Nah I'm just a consequentialist, we all kind of have that "your feelings do not deter me" vibe.
"Outdoor domestic cats are a recognized threat to global biodiversity. Cats have contributed to the extinction of 63 species of birds, mammals, and reptiles in the wild"
You shouldn't be proud of contributing to the extinction of animals...
Can you link that quote? Curious what the source is?
Dude the trash animals are getting killed, oh noooooooo.
Think of the stupid rats,mice,lizards and birds! Oh no! The worst problem we're facing right now!
Does your mom know youre on her computer right now?
Your cat is your property. Keep it in your property. If your pet becomes my pest, it will be dealt with as such. I once had a neighbor's cat almost rip through my window screen to get inside and go after my pet parrot. If the cat had made it inside, he would not have made it out alive.
Then I could return it's corpse to you, and you can tell me all about how they evolved alongside humans, and how that means you're entitled to let your pet fuck up my yard, home and pets
Fantasizing about killing pets is a strong indicator of psychopathy.
Yet you're ok with my pet being killed
If your pet bird is being attacked by a cat, by all means, do what you have to. Daydreaming about murdering cats because they're scratching at your window is some sick shit, though.
In the United States.
Wherever there's birds, it's irresponsible to let cats out. NZ in particular, it's a damn massacre out there.
In the UK, the RSPB determines no negative impacts on bird populations. And the ecosystem is irrecoverably damaged from 3000 years of human impact on a relatively small island. Unlike new colonies like NZ, USA etc.
The UK is losing its wildcat population because of british arrogance about cats.
Youre also bringing in all your local predators into human settlements with the free food that cats become. Foxes love outdoor cats, theyre easy meals. You know what else loves cats? Tires. Smears a cat like jam.
But whats another destroyed ecosystem to the brits? Yall love ruining ecosystems, may as well fill your own backyard with piss.
The wildcats are in Northern Scotland. I'd be OK with the Scots banning outdoor cats.
Foxes like bins, they don't fight back.
I've seen maybe 1 domestic cat hit by a car, I've seen hundreds of hedgehogs, foxes, badgers and deer. That's not an outdoor cat problem.
It's easy to sit on a moral high horse about a country you don't really know anything about. We didn't come to this land 300 years ago. The concept of an intact ecosystem vanished about 1000 years ago. It is a completely different island. The best we can do is keep the last of our wild species ticking over.
Unlike the Americans, who exploited and continue to exploit one of the most beautiful lands in the world, when they should have known better.
The wildcats are now surviving in northern scotland. That was not their original range.
Your lot thought a serial killer was on a cat mutilation spree, for 4 years, only to find out it was a fox that wasnt hiding its kills. So.... No, sorry, you dont actually seem to know the country you live in very well. Foxes eat cats like candy, they just prefer to hide while they eat.
But Im glad cat deaths only count when you see them, Im sure you cover your eyes often.
"Unlike the americans." Lol, ok bud. Because I know from actual formerly british researchers that you take care of your ecosystem as well as well as you take care of your relationship with the mainland.
Okie doke. You're clearly very angry about cats, so much so you managed to miss every point I made, good job.
Your points werent missed, they were just wrong.
But youve made it clear that reality wont stop you killing cats or further ruining your local ecosystem, so farewell to the poor scottish wildcat.
What is different in other places?
In countries where cats are native, they have significantly less impact on wildlife, or at the very least form a part of an ecosystem rather than being a manual introduction (admittedly one complication here is cat populations grouping up in suburban areas). As for safety for the cats, in their native countries they don't have any serious predators to harm them.
I don't know if Finland is considered native for cats but it's against the law to let cats roam freely because there's a very real risk of them getting injured, disease or dying. Not just from predators but from humans and cars and so on. A dead cat on the side of the road is a too common of a sight. I think the effect on wildlife is seen as secondary and the welfare of the cat is the foremost reason for it.
British cats go to cat school as soon as their eyes open so we have very smart cats that can navigate roads.
Sounds like it since nobody seems to be concerned about the cats, just birds.
I live in the UK where there are an estimated 10.8 million cats and have literally never seen "a dead cat on the side of the road". I appreciate that it is a real risk and that it does happen, but you're either blowing things out of proportion or there is something weird going on with Finnish cats and or Finnish drivers.
Found this
230,000 CATS IN THE UK ARE RUN OVER EVERY YEAR!
Statistically only 25% of road traffic accidents involving cats are fatal, so the chances are good the cat can survive with urgent care - instead of being left to suffer a painful death.
https://www.cats.org.uk/teignbridge/news/animal-road-accident-awareness-day
230,000÷10,800,000÷4x100%≈0.5%
If I had to personally take that risk or stay in the house for the rest of my life. I'd choose freedom every time.
What's really more selfish and entitled? Imprisoning an animal for life in return for an increased 0.5% of safety or letting it makes its own choice?
I was just showing you that there's a lot of cats dying from accidents with cars. A lot more getting injured from it. And it's just one hazard of many. That's why it's not seen as responsible pet ownership (and not legal) where I live to let them roam without supervision. Could get hit by a car and suffer horribly from it without you being able to do anything about it, which would be horrific.
What’s really more selfish and entitled? Imprisoning an animal for life in return for an increased 0.5% of safety or letting it makes its own choice?
I mean getting a cat is selfish to begin with since you are getting yourself a pet after all, but as a pet owner you're supposed to take as good care of them as possible. It's like with kids. Once you've made the decision to get one you're responsible for it and it would be silly to expect a small child to make the decisions. You're the one who is responsible for their well-being.
If we're going to get philosophical, is there truly such a thing as an unselfish act?
So you wouldn't let a kid ever do anything that had any sort of risk at all? Do you know how many children die in RTAs each year? Would you stop your child from ever walking down the street or being in a car or bus?
If not, why is it ok to put your own child at risk of an RTA but not a cat?
We don't have to get philosophical. It's just that here you're not supposed to let cats roam freely without supervision because there's a fair risk of injury, disease or death and if those happen you might not be in position to help. So it would be irresponsible pet ownership to put them under unnecessary risk.
Wheres your mom? This is a convo for grown ups who understand pet ownership
They’re saying that only people from the United States believe that outdoor cats are a net negative.
That's not true. In Finland it's actually against the law because it's considered irresponsible animal ownership.
USA isn't the only place where there's reason to fear the cat gets hurt, disease or could die.
I’m in total agreement just to be clear
Ah alright. It just felt so weird seeing all the comments about USA being different, so my mind got all jumbled.
I thought it was the same everywhere more or less as well.
That's not what I'm saying. Not only the USA. Other places where domestic cats are very new, like USA, NZ, etc also probably shouldn't do outdoor cats.