(whilst this article references feral cats, there’s obviously minimal difference between feral cats and roaming house cats as far as wildlife destruction goes)
People that love their cats and don’t want them to die young. Outdoor cats live an average of 2-5 years, indoor-only cats live an average of 10-15 years. By allowing cats outside, they’re exposed to pathogens, parasites, and dangers that they wouldn’t otherwise experience. In my area, there are coyotes, bobcats, rattlesnakes, hawks, and owls, all of which will quite happily make a meal of a cat. There are also cars; they don’t tend to be able to stop on a dime.
Worldwide domestic cats kill billions of songbirds annually. Many songbirds are insectivores that prey on mosquitoes and flys helping to keep their numbers in check.
Habitat loss, bioaccumulation of Neonicotinoids and predation by invasive species (domestic cats included) are top three issues for declining numbers of songbirds in the US.
Even the studies most friendly to your position put the conglomerate that cats are counted it in 4th place - e.g.:
Habitat Loss & Degradation (40-50%)
Climate Change (20-30%)
Pesticides & Chemical Pollution (10-15%)
Predation by Domestic & Invasive Species (5-10%)
Collisions (5-10%)
Disease & Parasites (1-5%)
Illegal Hunting & Trapping (1-3%)
Light Pollution (<1-2%)
Let’s be very generous and concede cats could contribute 5% (sorry magpies, crows, etc pp. - you contribte almost nothing)
I don’t argue this point because I am way to fond of cats. I don’t even agree with the above scale - at least when it comes to (formerly) common birds such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and common blackbird (Turdus merula). Their main problems are Usutu virus and loss of insect biomass.
I am shit-scared about the loss of insect biomass. I am old and observant enough to have recognized the Windshield phenomenon by myself. I concur with the Danish study hinting at a 80% decrease from 1997 until 2017 (I actually think it is higher now). I live in major city with nice parks - the decrease is observable here too.
If the food supply of songbirds has declined by at least 80% that is your biggest problem right there - and it does not only affect songbirds and not only insectivores.
Over-emphasizing cats in this situation is a smoke screen/ red herring akin to BP pushing the carbon footprint of the common man.
Major environmental effects of climate change be it sea level rise, ocean acidification, drought, intensifying storms and temperature rise are all changes to abiotic conditions. Changing abiotic conditions leads to changes in biotic conditions. A habitat is defined by the combination of biotic and abiotic conditions. Therefore climate change should be included in habitat loss.
Sounds like a perfect environment to not own a cat. Don’t get get a cat if you live in an area that can’t accommodate them - they aren’t a universal pet despite the fact people treat them like they are.
And they’ve been dying in some horrific ways during that time. Now there’s also a lot of extra, human caused dangers. A responsible pet owner wouldn’t subject their pet to such dangers.
The study weighs the pros and cons of outdoor and indoor keeping. It also offers some ideas how to mitigate the cons. It’s an interesting study, you should ask someone to explain it to you.
The study mentions that risk factors of outdoor keeping vary by location. There is no mention of historic risk and therefore no assessment how these may have evolved.
If you read the conclusion it does say it would be better to keep your cats indoors because of all the associated risks. You just seem to be in denial about the whole thing and I don’t blame you, it’s a really emotional topic for some reason.
I mean study after study gives the obvious conclusion that of course it comes with increased risk and of course you wouldn’t be there to help them, it’s unsupervised and unrestricted roaming, so duh. And of course it negatively affects the surrounding wildlife, you’re introducing lots of cats to places that had a lot less if any cats.
But there’s such a strong emotional aspect to it that I just can’t understand that makes people pretend stupid or just refuse to accept the obvious conclusion.
The study mentions that risk factors of outdoor keeping vary by location. There is no mention of historic risk and therefore no assessment how these may have evolved.
You really need a study to say to you that thousands of years ago cars weren’t as much of a risk?
Like, I agree with the tit for tat. But don’t let your cat outside.
Who tf gets a pet cat and doesn’t let it outside? If you don’t have space for a cat don’t get one.
cats destroy native wildlife… at least in australia, it’s a huge problem
https://invasives.org.au/our-work/feral-animals/cats-in-australia/
(whilst this article references feral cats, there’s obviously minimal difference between feral cats and roaming house cats as far as wildlife destruction goes)
People that love their cats and don’t want them to die young. Outdoor cats live an average of 2-5 years, indoor-only cats live an average of 10-15 years. By allowing cats outside, they’re exposed to pathogens, parasites, and dangers that they wouldn’t otherwise experience. In my area, there are coyotes, bobcats, rattlesnakes, hawks, and owls, all of which will quite happily make a meal of a cat. There are also cars; they don’t tend to be able to stop on a dime.
Worldwide domestic cats kill billions of songbirds annually. Many songbirds are insectivores that prey on mosquitoes and flys helping to keep their numbers in check.
The current problem of insectivores is a massive massive lack of insects, not cats.
Habitat loss, bioaccumulation of Neonicotinoids and predation by invasive species (domestic cats included) are top three issues for declining numbers of songbirds in the US.
Edit: added region
Even the studies most friendly to your position put the conglomerate that cats are counted it in 4th place - e.g.:
Let’s be very generous and concede cats could contribute 5% (sorry magpies, crows, etc pp. - you contribte almost nothing)
I don’t argue this point because I am way to fond of cats. I don’t even agree with the above scale - at least when it comes to (formerly) common birds such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and common blackbird (Turdus merula). Their main problems are Usutu virus and loss of insect biomass.
I am shit-scared about the loss of insect biomass. I am old and observant enough to have recognized the Windshield phenomenon by myself. I concur with the Danish study hinting at a 80% decrease from 1997 until 2017 (I actually think it is higher now). I live in major city with nice parks - the decrease is observable here too.
If the food supply of songbirds has declined by at least 80% that is your biggest problem right there - and it does not only affect songbirds and not only insectivores.
Over-emphasizing cats in this situation is a smoke screen/ red herring akin to BP pushing the carbon footprint of the common man.
Major environmental effects of climate change be it sea level rise, ocean acidification, drought, intensifying storms and temperature rise are all changes to abiotic conditions. Changing abiotic conditions leads to changes in biotic conditions. A habitat is defined by the combination of biotic and abiotic conditions. Therefore climate change should be included in habitat loss.
Sounds like a perfect environment to not own a cat. Don’t get get a cat if you live in an area that can’t accommodate them - they aren’t a universal pet despite the fact people treat them like they are.
Under that criteria, there are a grand total of zero areas that can accommodate them. Same goes for dogs.
But that’s a stupid criteria, because cats are tamed, and thrive indoors.
Hope that helps.
What is an area that can accommodate pet cats lol
People with coyotes for neighbours.
I’m not gonna shame people for outdoor cats… but you’re being a little obtuse here.
usdefaultism
huh? I’m not from the us?
Letting it roam freely risks it getting hurt and without you being there to help it. It’s not very responsible.
It’s also how house cats have been living for about 10000 years.
And they’ve been dying in some horrific ways during that time. Now there’s also a lot of extra, human caused dangers. A responsible pet owner wouldn’t subject their pet to such dangers.
Please elaborate your claims about past and present dangers for pets, I’m curious about specifics.
Also how are you mitigating the risk of “such dangers” for pets and children?
Well you might have heard of cars, highways and other such human created things that haven’t existed during all that time.
Here’s one study where they examined the welfare concerns over unrestricted/unsupervised outdoor access (and other concerns). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7070728/#sec5-animals-10-00258
I wouldn’t allow a cat or a small child to roam around unrestricted. It just seems due to the inherent threats pretty irresponsible.
The study weighs the pros and cons of outdoor and indoor keeping. It also offers some ideas how to mitigate the cons. It’s an interesting study, you should ask someone to explain it to you.
The study mentions that risk factors of outdoor keeping vary by location. There is no mention of historic risk and therefore no assessment how these may have evolved.
If you read the conclusion it does say it would be better to keep your cats indoors because of all the associated risks. You just seem to be in denial about the whole thing and I don’t blame you, it’s a really emotional topic for some reason.
I mean study after study gives the obvious conclusion that of course it comes with increased risk and of course you wouldn’t be there to help them, it’s unsupervised and unrestricted roaming, so duh. And of course it negatively affects the surrounding wildlife, you’re introducing lots of cats to places that had a lot less if any cats.
But there’s such a strong emotional aspect to it that I just can’t understand that makes people pretend stupid or just refuse to accept the obvious conclusion.
You really need a study to say to you that thousands of years ago cars weren’t as much of a risk?