81–90 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a testable hypothesis. Neighborhoods with more outdoor pet cats should have fewer rodent problems in homes.
Humans have been testing this hypothesis for milennia. There jury is very much in.
The flipside of these cat bans is that people suddenly discover they have a rodent problem that they didn't realize before. Mice start appearing everywhere, invading homes, chewing on wires, boring holes into buildings, etc...
Seems like a testable hypothesis. Neighborhoods with more outdoor pet cats should have fewer rodent problems in homes.
About two weeks after we re-homed him we noticed pest control vans outside of three of the homes on our street. We talked to the neighbors and they were now seeing mice and rats and needed to get them removed.
I've read multiple times that there've been discussions in a few places around the world to ban cats, or certain breeding of cats to save wildlife, or birds specifically. But I haven't heard any law become real, anyone?
> Cats kill a staggering number of species across the world Says the human . . .
https://brb.sprep.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/A_Review_o...
This is why I am against feeding wild cats (usually by well-intentioned people). They are ruthless predators and enough of them are around. Cats can slaughter bird colonies (though somehow they never slaughter the ugly pigeons, nor the invasive parrots in the area I live in) so they are best left to themselves instead of going the "beautiful kitty that is starving" way and artificially growing their population. Final…
> This is why I am against feeding wild cats (usually by well-intentioned people). They are ruthless predators and enough of them are around. Wouldn't feeding them reduce the amount they need to kill to feed themselves? I know of at least one cat colony that has a caretaker that feeds them, they have all been catch and release spayed/neutered so the colony can't grow. They try to get adoptions for some of them but th…
We must not perceived them through our errors, it is not that they are psychopaths or something, this is just the way they are. It would not be a problem if they were not artificially sustained through our help.
Sterilization is a good solution (in addition to not feeding them).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK is more resistant to change than even we Americans are (except for units of measurement). Just because something has been one way for a long time doesn’t mean it’s good. Cats kill lots of native wild animals, and whether those animal populations would be similar without them is entirely beside the point. In the same way it is inhumane to have dogs rip foxes apart for sport, it is inhumane to allow pet cats to…
There is barely any "wilderness" in the UK. The landscape has been transformed, species have been introduced, other killed off, especially predators. In suburban areas there are also many birdfeeders in gardens. Does that mean additional birds without natural predators? I am sure that cats can have a negative impact in countries where they have been introduced more recently and where there is still true wilderness bu…
It’s about the fact that people have “pets” that they let kill several animals a day for sport, and for what? So you can see that cat once a week when it comes home?
It’s inhumane, and I’d argue a society caring about that is simply further evolved, culturally, in that one particular area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans have been testing this hypothesis for milennia. There jury is very much in.
I should be more specific that I'm talking about a modern residential neighborhood in an industrialized society.
[0] e.g. https://treehouseanimals.org/programs/community-cats/catsatw...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure it’s just bad logic informed by propaganda.
Excuse me what propaganda? This is informed opinion.
There’s quite a bit of anti-pet propaganda put out ironically by two groups that have diametrically opposed viewpoints: ones that love animals and ones that hate them. But that’s not what I was referring to mostly.
There’s also a lot of environmental propaganda that makes people feel as if every little thing that brings them joy must be curtailed because it contributes to global warming or they’re evil. That is propaganda from the people who make trillions off of fossil fuel or the energy derived from it, they want you to worry about your dog’s environmental impact despite the fact that climate change is 98% a matter of public policy. As long as you’re focusing on whether or not you should take that plane trip or have a dog you’re not worried about why there isn’t a carbon tax, and why the emitters get by year after year without being forced to pay for their negative externalities. And if that all sounds a little too tinfoil hat for you I totally understand, but read all the recently released documents from the plastic industry about how they promoted recycling, knowing full well that it neither worked nor helped the environment when it was done, so that you’d feel better about using their products.
They want you to think climate change is your fault and can be fixed if you just drive a more efficient car, or install a heat pump, or don’t have a dog. It can’t. We can all spend all our time doing all the little things we’re told matter, but at the end of the day our personal choices are a drop in the bucket compared to industrial/agricultural choices we have no say over. You can only make a difference in climate change at the voting booth. They know it but they don’t want you to.
Responsible pet ownership has relatively low (and certainly not unfathomable) environmental impact. One does not have to eradicate entire species just because some assholes let their cats roam free. Just don’t let your pets roam free.
Keep loving your dog and letting others love theirs. Pick up after it, don’t let it off leash, certainly don’t let it murder local fauna all day, and don’t worry about the CO2 emissions involved in its food. It’s negligible.