• UserFlairOptional@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

          • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            Not in the wild, but in a suburban neighborhood they are. Apex is relative to what else is out there.

            • trolske@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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.

    • rektdeckard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      11 months ago

      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?

      • threeduck@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        11 months ago

        Wherever there’s birds, it’s irresponsible to let cats out. NZ in particular, it’s a damn massacre out there.

        • Sunfoil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Sunfoil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • Sunfoil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Okie doke. You’re clearly very angry about cats, so much so you managed to miss every point I made, good job.

                  • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

        • jpeps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

            • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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.

                • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  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?

                  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

        • MacDangus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          They’re saying that only people from the United States believe that outdoor cats are a net negative.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

          • Sunfoil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.