I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at. Like, you think they should be spayed\neutered but allowed to be outside?
I feel the need to point out, I'm not disagreeing, just trying to be sure about what you mean.
Essentially, yes. A typical housecat isn't a good hunter, anyway, and I don't think animals are fit to live inside. Could you imagine never going outside? better to not have one in the first place.
We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually, and that un-owned cats cause the majority of this mortality.
un-owned cats cause the majority of this mortality.
Sorry I missed that you're the same person from earlier when replying to inbox messages.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals.
Yes, if your argument is that feral cats do more damage than owned "outdoor cats" you are right. There are more feral cats.
But to point to feral cats as support for the argument that outdoor cats don't do that much damage is a simple whataboutism. People are pointing out that both are a problem, and deeply intertwined.
Outdoor cats make feral cats, they breed with feral cats, they become feral cats. And both hunt equally per-cat. The study is not saying that a feral cat individually kills more than an owned cat, it is saying most of the bird mortality is caused by the population of feral cats which is estimated to be between 60–160 million. Equal or more than the number of owned cats, of which many are not "outdoor cats" and actually have responsible owners.
An "outdoor cat" is estimated to kill about 2 birds per week on average, and that is far from your statement of "people talk about the handful of birds a year a cat kills" unless you have some massive hands.
TNR does not work and that is supported by almost every scientist in the field.
Neutering your "outdoor cat" is certainly better than not doing so. But it ignores how outdoor cats still kill hundreds of birds, small lizards, insects, rodents, etc. every year.
In no way can you argue outdoor cats is a net benefit. It's ridiculous to take that position beyond a desire for contrarianism.
I literally said not having a cat would be better than having one above. and no, an owned indoor-outdoor cat does not kill hundreds of animals a year. try reading your own sources
Pets are good for human health and can have educational uses as well. Thats more importent than some birds.
The decrease in bird population is much more related to insecticides and the suburbs usually kill or drive out all natural predators who would also kill birds.
just because something is good for human health doesn't give humans the right to destroy the ecosystem. companion animals are fine but it's your responsibility to make sure they're not harming the ecosystem you share with billions of other lives.
Yeah, I agree with that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on the exact effect it has on the environment or anything, but definitely spay and neuter. Every animal I've had has come from the pound, spayed neutered, etc.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at. Like, you think they should be spayed\neutered but allowed to be outside?
I feel the need to point out, I'm not disagreeing, just trying to be sure about what you mean.
Essentially, yes. A typical housecat isn't a good hunter, anyway, and I don't think animals are fit to live inside. Could you imagine never going outside? better to not have one in the first place.
Completely and demonstrably wrong.
Yea.. this person has never owned a cat.
ok, demonstrate it
No, flat earther, I will not waste my time to Google shit for you when it is the first thing that will pop up when you search.
If you actually cared about correcting yourself and not just taking the opposing side you'd have looked it up already.
Yes, feral cats.
Additionally, outdoor cats are just feral cats in function, except someone is sponsoring their invasive activities.
Wrong, estimates differentiate between owned cats and unowned by a factor of like 10
Cool source.
eat shit and die. you are the one that made the initial claims, and failed to back them up. go fuck yourself.
http://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art3/#killed
Sorry I missed that you're the same person from earlier when replying to inbox messages.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
Yes, if your argument is that feral cats do more damage than owned "outdoor cats" you are right. There are more feral cats.
But to point to feral cats as support for the argument that outdoor cats don't do that much damage is a simple whataboutism. People are pointing out that both are a problem, and deeply intertwined.
Outdoor cats make feral cats, they breed with feral cats, they become feral cats. And both hunt equally per-cat. The study is not saying that a feral cat individually kills more than an owned cat, it is saying most of the bird mortality is caused by the population of feral cats which is estimated to be between 60–160 million. Equal or more than the number of owned cats, of which many are not "outdoor cats" and actually have responsible owners.
An "outdoor cat" is estimated to kill about 2 birds per week on average, and that is far from your statement of "people talk about the handful of birds a year a cat kills" unless you have some massive hands.
Have you ever heard of anything called neutering?
And no, both do not "hunt equally per-cat". did you read the study I liked, or even your own?
TNR does not work and that is supported by almost every scientist in the field.
Neutering your "outdoor cat" is certainly better than not doing so. But it ignores how outdoor cats still kill hundreds of birds, small lizards, insects, rodents, etc. every year.
In no way can you argue outdoor cats is a net benefit. It's ridiculous to take that position beyond a desire for contrarianism.
I literally said not having a cat would be better than having one above. and no, an owned indoor-outdoor cat does not kill hundreds of animals a year. try reading your own sources
Why the hell are you arguing in favor of having an outdoor cat then?
I'm wondering that about yourself when all you've done in this comment chain is post falsehoods
That's 90% of pets
Pets are good for human health and can have educational uses as well. Thats more importent than some birds. The decrease in bird population is much more related to insecticides and the suburbs usually kill or drive out all natural predators who would also kill birds.
You can have a cat and not let it destroy local ecosystems for funsies.
just because something is good for human health doesn't give humans the right to destroy the ecosystem. companion animals are fine but it's your responsibility to make sure they're not harming the ecosystem you share with billions of other lives.
Keep your cat inside you fucking liberal.
Your cat doesn't need to kill animals for human health.
We put our cat out on a leash and let him do his thing in the yard. Cats absolutely kill wild birds.
Yeah, I agree with that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on the exact effect it has on the environment or anything, but definitely spay and neuter. Every animal I've had has come from the pound, spayed neutered, etc.