# Cat amongst the pigeons.



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)




----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

Cats - For those that like the idea of a pet but not the responsibilities they come with( in most cases, before I get shouted at ).



Gavin.


----------



## 955i (Aug 17, 2007)

gavgav04 said:


> Cats - For those that like the idea of a pet but not the responsibilities they come with( in most cases, before I get shouted at ).
> 
> 
> 
> Gavin.


I can't for the life of me think why people like the damned things!!


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

cats are non-native? what an absolute pile of ****. (incase you don't know, Felis silvestris, is our native cat and very much like our domesticated ones (indeed breeds freely with them); whose numbers have been falling for a long time, I'm sure that there where a few other species aswell before the industrial revolution)

no denying that cats kill things, but then so do owls, hawks, buzzards, foxes, snakes etc etc


what are the 33 species that cats have wiped out? where is the evidence of this? more **** I'm pretty sure.

Humans do more damage than cats, end of.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Cats are a pet species that are realeased daily to do what they like including killing other animals. No other pet species does this. Tthe others that you have mentioned are all wild animals.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

colinm said:


> Cats are a pet species that are realeased daily to do what they like including killing other animals. No other pet species does this. Tthe others that you have mentioned are all wild animals.


so what?

infact most domestic cats are appalling hunters, out of 11 cats ive owned over the years, only 2 have ever been able to successfully hunt (one occasional hunter, one regular), the rest where too clumsy, too noisy or just not interested in hunting.


cats do not kill as many animals as wild animals do (or humans, for that matter), so its ridiculous to blame them for species dying off; which on the whole, is actually humans causing the problem.



how many rats and mice die every year for the sake of peoples pet snakes? whether they are domesticated rodents or not is totally irrelevant, they are still dying to feed pets.


fact is, that image contains outright misinformation, cats are native to this country and they are not responsible for species extinction in this country.


(thought I would look it up, and it looks like that number of 33 species came from a BBC article a few years ago, interesting to note that the original article has since been modified and that number/accusation removed completely...clearly came from a source which could not be trusted.) (here is the original article, which is linked to by various sources which make the 33 claim... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21236690 )


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Its black and white cats kill other animals. No other pet species is allowed free reign to go out and kill others. Wild animals kill others to eat in most cases not bring " a present home to Mummy or Daddy". If I let my dog out to do what it wants and kill other species their would be an outcry.


----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

955i said:


> I can't for the life of me think why people like the damned things!!


To be honest I can't really stand the things either but we have three. They were house cats but they now have a huge old aviary to call home. It's more the idiots that own them, the free roaming cats that is, that I hate. They should be treated the exact same way as any other pet.




CloudForest said:


> how many rats and mice die every year for the sake of peoples pet snakes? whether they are domesticated rodents or not is totally irrelevant, they are still dying to feed pets.
> 
> 
> fact is, that image contains outright misinformation, cats are native to this country and they are not responsible for species extinction in this country.


You make my head hurt.



Gavin.


----------



## malykot (May 4, 2015)

I can't say anything about England, as while I may be English I've never actually lived there, but the original stats posted are absolutely true for America. Free-roaming domesticated cats are not native to the US, and they absolutely destroy the natural populations of birds, rodents and other small animals.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

colinm said:


> Its black and white cats kill other animals. No other pet species is allowed free reign to go out and kill others. Wild animals kill others to eat in most cases not bring " a present home to Mummy or Daddy". If I let my dog out to do what it wants and kill other species their would be an outcry.


so what?

we happily kill billions of cows, chickens, pigs, goats, horses, etc for our own food and that of our pets


if its black and white, then either you don't accept that any animal should ever die for anything human related, or, you accept that meat is an essential part of life regardless of whether that is a cat, human, dog or monkey....or snake.


you cant have your cake and eat it

as they say.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

malykot said:


> I can't say anything about England, as while I may be English I've never actually lived there, but the original stats posted are absolutely true for America. Free-roaming domesticated cats are not native to the US, and they absolutely destroy the natural populations of birds, rodents and other small animals.


there are several species of wild cat in the US - of course domesticated cats are different, that's why they are domesticated, and, most are rubbish hunters

cats do not destroy anywhere near the same number of animals as humans do.


----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

CloudForest said:


> so what?
> 
> we happily kill billions of cows, chickens, pigs, goats, horses, etc for our own food and that of our pets
> 
> ...


How can you possibly compare animals that are bred purely for the purpose of human consumption( and snakes in your last post ) and the wild population of animals that are killed by domesticated animals that humans let out the house because they are too lazy to care for them?

Pet cats should not be allowed out to free roam.



CloudForest said:


> there are several species of wild cat in the US - of course domesticated cats are different, that's why they are domesticated, and, most are rubbish hunters
> 
> cats do not destroy anywhere near the same number of animals as humans do.


We aren't talking about wild cats, no one has a problem with wild cats killing for survival so why bring it up? We are talking about pets that should be kept inside or in outdoor cages.



Gavin.


----------



## malykot (May 4, 2015)

Animals specifically kept, bred and fed to become food are much different (and have almost no impact on the natural ecosystems where they are kept) from free-roaming, domesticated cats. Cats have no need to be outside. They can and should be kept indoors full-time, as when they are outdoors, they are being exposed to disease, wild animals, and waaaaay too many defenseless prey animals to count.

Some stats:

_National Traffic Safety Commission:_
5.4 million cats are hit by cars each year in the US.
97% of cats die after being hit.

_The Humane Society of America:_
22,000 cats die per day.
The leading COD is feline leukemia, which is picked up through contact with strays.

_Studies:_
Outdoor cats in the US kill 1.4-3.7 billion birds per year, and 6.9-20.7 billion mammals per year.

You can say whatever you want about the UK, but in the US, outdoor cats (NOT wild cats, we're talking about domesticated pets which are allowed to roam free) are a major environmental hazard.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Cats kill these animals and for the most part dont eat them. I dont have a problem with people keeping cats , its about responsible ownership.

Say if I let my dog out and it kille your cat would you say thats part of life ? For the record she has pinned down a cat before and I dragged her off being a resonsible pet owner.


----------



## Ophexis (Feb 19, 2010)

Cats should remain indoors or in protected areas of their own gardens, for their own safety if nothing else. 
The world is changing; we have more roads, faster cars, more dogs... cats are safest in the home, there's no denying that. 

The thing is though, is that there is no law telling cat owners that they _can't_ turf their cats out to go about their business as they please. We are following a generation that has been brought up to think that is perfectly normal and it's in a cat's nature to roam. Until a law or something of a similar nature is passed making it punishable for letting your cat range, people will continue to do it.
I'm not going to deny it: I still let our cats out whenever they want to go out (so call me a hypocrite all you like) but I have no choice in the matter. They belong to my parents and what they choose to do with their cats is their right. 
But when it comes to me owning my own cats, they will be kept indoors and provided with a secure outdoor area so they won't come to any harm.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

cats do roam, it is in their nature, they frequently have territories of several square miles, except when their are other more dominant cats local. the same applies to both domestic and wild cats.



gavgav04 said:


> How can you possibly compare animals that are bred purely for the purpose of human consumption( and snakes in your last post ) and the wild population of animals that are killed by domesticated animals that humans let out the house because they are too lazy to care for them?
> 
> Pet cats should not be allowed out to free roam.
> 
> ...


why should there be a distinction between the two? why should humans be allowed to kill billions and billions of animals for food, and yet people complain about a minority of domestic cats which do the same on a far smaller scale?

its nonsense, and actually comes down to a simple dislike of cats, not a rational argument against them or the way they are cared for.

no I do not believe we have any right to make a distinction between the food we kill for ourselves and our pets, and the food which domestic cats kill occasionally, its completely hypocritical


and the belief that domestic cats do not eat their prey is also nonsense, i know because I have often found the little bits of left over mouse on the carpet, and infact I am grateful that my current cat eats the mice it can catch!

preventing cats from catching birds is very very easy, put a bell on the cat, and do not put bird food in places where the cat can easily stalk and catch them, simple!


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Bells dont work. Cats are too good predators for that.

I go over to a friends in Bedford most weekends and she asks me to clear the dead animals off the lawn. I wouldnt mind if they were pigeons or magpies but they are usually songbirds.

I really dont see the analogy with people eating animals.


----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

CloudForest said:


> cats do roam, it is in their nature, they frequently have territories of several square miles, except when their are other more dominant cats local. the same applies to both domestic and wild cats.


We all know they roam an have territories. But for every other species we keep that does the exact same thing we have to provide appropriately size enclosures. We offer a 60'x40'x20' aviary for our cats and they can do what ever the hell they like in their. Obviously not everyone can give that sort of space but if you can't let your cat have free roam of the house or give it a decent sized enclosure then you shouldn't own it. It goes for any species. If you can't provide what it needs don't have it. 





CloudForest said:


> why should there be a distinction between the two? why should humans be allowed to kill billions and billions of animals for food, and yet people complain about a minority of domestic cats which do the same on a far smaller scale?
> 
> its nonsense, and actually comes down to a simple dislike of cats, not a rational argument against them or the way they are cared for.
> 
> ...


Why? Because the animals that we breed for our consumption or the consumption of captive animals can be easily monitored where as wild populations needlessly killed by domesticated pet cats can't. 

It's not from a dislike of cats at all.

There is a much easier option. Stop letting your cats stray out of your garden when outside. And don't leave them unattended they are meant to be pets. As has already been pointed out, if a dog was to get out a garden and kill any animal there would be uproar.



Gavin.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

a dead animal is a dead animal, I cannot understand why anyone would deny a cat fresh raw meat, but will still go and buy a steak at the supermarket


I do accept that protecting wild birds is important, some are becoming rare, and it is everyones responsibility to help protect them (both cat owners and non-cat owners!), by placing food in safe places, and protecting potential nesting and fledgling sites - and if the cat will wear a collar, put a bell on it, it does work! my cat can only catch mice when he has a bell on, otherwise he can catch everything from birds to squirls to mice & rats.

but, the reality is, it is human behaviour which has reduced song bird numbers in this country, our habit of monoculture agriculture, destruction of wild habitats, pollution, overuse of pesticides and herbicides and urbanisation, is responsible for the decline of birds on a far greater scale than cats - cats are a scapegoat for something which humans do not want to take responsibility for.


I do not accept the argument that it is ok to kill animals for humans, but it is not ok for cats to kill prey, its hypocritical, regardless of what those animals are, we are both predators - and the idea that you can stop a cat leaving your garden is just hilarious, clearly the idea of someone who doesn't actually know cats


----------



## malykot (May 4, 2015)

CloudForest said:


> a dead animal is a dead animal, I cannot understand why anyone would deny a cat fresh raw meat, but will still go and buy a steak at the supermarket


If you want your cat to eat meat (which, ideally, is the diet they should have, not those nasty pellet diets), go out and buy meat for them. Do your research and feed them correctly. Do NOT expose them to injury and parasites from wild birds and mammals.



CloudForest said:


> I do not accept the argument that it is ok to kill animals for humans, but it is not ok for cats to kill prey, its hypocritical, regardless of what those animals are, we are both predators - and the idea that you can stop a cat leaving your garden is just hilarious, clearly the idea of someone who doesn't actually know cats


A) It is okay for _wild_ cats to kill prey. What's not okay is for a human to decide "you know what, I don't feel like having a pet," and throw their cat out into the wide world.

B) No one was actually saying that it's not okay for animals to eat other animals? We're saying that it is completely up to the human who owns the cat to make sure they stay indoors, where they can't _literally cause species to go extinct._

C) I have had three cats in my lifetime, and am down to one. There is a very easy way to "stop a cat leaving your garden."

Don't let it into the garden. :whistling2:


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

malykot said:


> If you want your cat to eat meat (which, ideally, is the diet they should have, not those nasty pellet diets), go out and buy meat for them. Do your research and feed them correctly. Do NOT expose them to injury and parasites from wild birds and mammals.


out of 11 cats, not including the ones i currently have, none of them have been killed or injured by wild birds, mammals or parasites, and only one was hit by a car - cats are quite capable of taking care of themselves, they managed for many many milions of years before humans started stroking them.



> A) It is okay for _wild_ cats to kill prey. What's not okay is for a human to decide "you know what, I don't feel like having a pet," and throw their cat out into the wide world.


 of course it isn't ok to abandon a cat, what has that got to do with this topic tho?



> B) No one was actually saying that it's not okay for animals to eat other animals? We're saying that it is completely up to the human who owns the cat to make sure they stay indoors, where they can't _literally cause species to go extinct._


you are starting on a falicy, humans are responsible for the extinction of species, not cats, they are a scapegoat for humans that don't want to take responsibility for the way we treat our planet and the other animals which live on it



> C) I have had three cats in my lifetime, and am down to one. There is a very easy way to "stop a cat leaving your garden."
> 
> Don't let it into the garden. :whistling2:


 some cats don't mind being indoors, and that's fine, but some become very distressed by the confinement, and with a little sensible planning in the garden and bird feeding/nesting/fledling sites, regular deworming to ensure the cat is not always hungry, and using a bell on a collar, its not to difficult to reduce the number of birds that are eaten

but, humans are responsible for the decline in bird numbers, not cats. its completely untrue that cats are responsible for extinctions, there are very very few cases where other animals cause extinction, it does happen very rarley, but mostly its humans who are responsible - and that goes for song birds too.


----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

CloudForest said:


> a dead animal is a dead animal, I cannot understand why anyone would deny a cat fresh raw meat, but will still go and buy a steak at the supermarket


One is bred specifically for consumption and easy to monitor and sustain. The other isn't. 




CloudForest said:


> but, the reality is, it is human behaviour which has reduced song bird numbers in this country, our habit of monoculture agriculture, destruction of wild habitats, pollution, overuse of pesticides and herbicides and urbanisation, is responsible for the decline of birds on a far greater scale than cats.


Yes, but cats are a part of it. And a part that we can eradicate with the introduction of sensible owners.




CloudForest said:


> I do not accept the argument that it is ok to kill animals for humans, but it is not ok for cats to kill prey, its hypocritical, regardless of what those animals are, we are both predators - and the idea that you can stop a cat leaving your garden is just hilarious, clearly the idea of someone who doesn't actually know cats


It's not hypocritical. Maybe if we all went out and needlessly killed any random wild species it would be hypocritical but we are, mostly, killing animals bred for a specific purpose. 

Really it's hilarious? It's impossible to cat-proof a garden is it? I can stop mine leaving the garden - it's called an enclosure. I know cats, I own them and although I don't like them I care for them as well as I can and as responsibly as I can.

I had a slight conversion on this subject with Feorag at one time and she can seem to cat proof her garden as she doesn't like her cats free roaming. Surely it can't be that hard for you.



Gavin.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

no cats are not responsible for the major decline in song birds, humans are, the number of birds cats kill is dwarfed by the numbers that humans have displaced


song birds numbers could easily be maintained, we could stop monoculture, pesticides, herbicides and urbanisation, we could turn the countryside into the habitat in once was, that would solve the problem, keeping cats indoors will not.

surely that's not to hard, is it?

well...financially speaking, yes, it is hard, but I guess money is more important than wildlife right?


----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

CloudForest said:


> no cats are not responsible for the major decline in song birds, humans are, the number of birds cats kill is dwarfed by the numbers that humans have displaced


So are they responsible or aren't they? This sentence says both.



Gavin.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

gavgav04 said:


> So are they responsible or aren't they? This sentence says both.
> 
> 
> 
> Gavin.


no it doesn't, it says that the number of birds killed by cats, is nothing compared to those displaced by human activity. it infers that humans are the cause of song bird decline, not cats.


----------



## 955i (Aug 17, 2007)

CloudForest said:


> no cats are not responsible for the major decline in song birds, humans are, the number of birds cats kill is dwarfed by the numbers that humans have displaced
> 
> 
> song birds numbers could easily be maintained, we could stop monoculture, pesticides, herbicides and urbanisation, we could turn the countryside into the habitat in once was, that would solve the problem, keeping cats indoors will not.
> ...


 Sorry, but I have read all of this thread (theres 15 minutes I will never get back :whistling2 and I have to say your responses are the biggest load of nonsense I have read in a long time!!


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

955i said:


> Sorry, but I have read all of this thread (theres 15 minutes I will never get back :whistling2 and I have to say your responses are the biggest load of nonsense I have read in a long time!!


prove it, where is the evidence?

and no a sensationalist meme with misinformation on it, is not evidence.

let me see the links that prove I am talking nonsense, believe it or not, I have a brain, and I do not ignore evidence...unlike many it seems.


----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

CloudForest said:


> no it doesn't, it says that the number of birds killed by cats, is nothing compared to those displaced by human activity. it infers that humans are the cause of song bird decline, not cats.


There we go again. So cats kill birds, it may be less than humans but cats are not to blame for the decline of birds? Not even partially? Well that makes a whole load of sense...



CloudForest said:


> a sensationalist meme


A fricken whit? What the fook is a meme?



Gavin.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

humans are responsible for the extinction of 784 species, and the threatened extinction of 16,000 species

The human impact on biological diversity. How species adapt to urban challenges sheds light on evolution and provides clues about conservation

so please, don't talk to me about cats eating a few birds.


whats a meme?

do i have to do everyones research for them? 

meme - definition of meme in English from the Oxford dictionary


----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

CloudForest said:


> humans are responsible for the extinction of 784 species, and the threatened extinction of 16,000 species


What has that got to do with cats? We all know that as a species we are the most destructive but this thread is about cats and how destructive they are. 




CloudForest said:


> so please, don't talk to me about cats eating a few birds.


On a thread about cats killing birds, and everything else, what are we gonna talk to you about? Memes, F1, fox hunting?

Cats kill more native animals than any other pet and there is a very easy solution. Don't let them wonder the streets.




CloudForest said:


> whats a meme?


Sorry if I avoid social media like the plague, but some of us have other things to do. Like advising irresponsible cat owners to keep their cats under control.



Gavin.


----------



## 123dragon (Jan 15, 2011)

My cat goes out and hunts ..... Pigeons doves, rats rabbits ect
But then I take my dog out and he hunts and catches rats and rabbits ........ Birds if he can


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I assume that you cat is not on a lead? Dogs will only catch animals when they are off the lead, ie when they are allowed to.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

I love this being on a reptile forum in which people were encouraged to shout and scream about proposed legislation to prohibit/restrict the sale of reptiles and exotics that had the potential to become invasive. some species of which have already done huge damage to ecosystems throughout Europe. 

for the record, before anybody gets their knickers in a twist, I support responsible ownership of any animal over legislation.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I class myself as a responsible pet owner, who puts the welfare of my pets first. For this reason when I decided keep cats I looked into the best ways of keeping them safe - so I catproofed my garden.

In almost 30 years of cat ownership/breeding - no cat ever escaped from my garden and in all that time one caught a bird and brought it to me. I took it from him, there was no injury to it, so it didn't need anti-biotics and I set it free. They've also twice found frogs which they stalked with great interest, but left alone and that's the total impact of my 20 cats and numerous kittens on the bird/mammal/reptile population. 

Imo there are far more reasons to keep your cats in a safe environment than to allow it to free roam. Times have changed since the days when this was considered the right thing to do - in the same way as when I grew up everyone allowed their dogs to free roam - you can't do that now and I wish a law would be brought out to make cat owners responsible. 

You can catproof your garden and give your cats a good quality of life and I get fed up hearing people saying "it's unnatural" as an excuse for opening the door and allowing their cats to free roam at the risk of being killed, stolen, run over or picking up an incurable fatal disease.

As far as the impact on wildlife is concerned - I do disagree with the original post


----------



## Iulia (Mar 2, 2011)

as said, I do wonder how it is possible to definitely prove the domestic cat is responsible for extinction of any species, when so many factors are at play.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

miss_ferret said:


> I love this being on a reptile forum in which people were encouraged to shout and scream about proposed legislation to prohibit/restrict the sale of reptiles and exotics that had the potential to become invasive. some species of which have already done huge damage to ecosystems throughout Europe.
> 
> for the record, before anybody gets their knickers in a twist, I support responsible ownership of any animal over legislation.


It was not encouraging people to shout and scream as you put it. It was about informing people.


----------



## studley (Oct 3, 2010)

*cats*



CloudForest said:


> cats are non-native? what an absolute pile of ****. (incase you don't know, Felis silvestris, is our native cat and very much like our domesticated ones (indeed breeds freely with them); whose numbers have been falling for a long time, I'm sure that there where a few other species aswell before the industrial revolution)
> 
> no denying that cats kill things, but then so do owls, hawks, buzzards, foxes, snakes etc etc
> 
> ...


2 points
1, In case you didn't know, the scottish wild cat is a distinct subspecies that we are about to lose thanks to hybridisation with our domestic moggies Scottish wildcat could be extinct 'within two years' - BBC News

2,, you can't compare other wild predators to domestic cats.
a wild predator has to defend a large territory to support themselves, they're population density is controlled by the abundance of prey, not so when you artificially feed them, the land is carrying more predators than the prey base can support.
perhaps if everyone stopped feeding their cats a natural balance could be restored! then you can compare them to your owls, buzzards, foxes whatever.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

studley said:


> 2 points
> 1, In case you didn't know, the scottish wild cat is a distinct subspecies that we are about to lose thanks to hybridisation with our domestic moggies Scottish wildcat could be extinct 'within two years' - BBC News
> 
> 2,, you can't compare other wild predators to domestic cats.
> ...



your first point shows you didn't actually read what I wrote

your second point, well, actually I don't see why we should distinguish the two, cats do not make the distinction, its an entirely arbitrary distinction to make, lives are lives, whether they are domestic or wild is irrelevant, either you are against them being killed completely, or you accept it as a natural part of life on this planet

but, that point doesn't really matter, the claims made about cats being responsible for extinctions is utter nonsense - if people really care about extinction of species, to the level seemingly suggested in this thread, then you must give up modern life and go live in a cave, and become a vegan

cant have your cake and eat it - blaming cats for human actions is a nonsense.


I hate that humans cause extinction, but, as with everyone else, i accept it as a part of life on this planet, and although I try and avoid products that are connected with ecosystem destruction, the fact remains that every single one of us are responsible, to a far great extent than any cat.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Humans keep cats as pets, its about responsible keeping. I have to say that your arrogance in this matter is truly amazing. You are not prepared to accept the statements of other cat keepers.


----------



## Chris18 (Mar 22, 2009)

CloudForest said:


> I hate that humans cause extinction, but, as with everyone else, i accept it as a part of life on this planet, *and although I try and avoid products that are connected with ecosystem destruction*, the fact remains that every single one of us are responsible, to a far great extent than any cat.


And you do this to reduce the impact you have on wild animals and yet you can't see that keeping cats indoors will impact the number of song birds die because they kill them and if they're inside they can't. It may not even contribute much but surely even a little help for the species is better than nothing.

And that's only one aspect of the reason they need to be kept indoors/safe gardens... You're basing your whole argument off one point and ignoring the others.

It's your responsibility to feed your cat, it's your responsibility for you to keep the cat entertained and safe, unfortunately there is no law to punish you for not doing that but it's still wrong to let them out.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

colinm said:


> It was not encouraging people to shout and scream as you put it. It was about informing people.


Informing and encouraging people to sign petitions against it, and donate money to fight it... And accusing anyone who said that a restriction may not be a bad thing of being 'an anti'.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I have never called anyone an anti. Perhaps if you opened your eyes at looked at the pressures on the hobby you would realise the problems we face. Or you could go around in cloud cuckoo land and be oblivious of it all.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

Try that again while being slightly less patronising...

I'm well aware of the problems the hobby faces, the potential invasive qualities of the animals it imports are one of its problems. 

If the statistics quoted in your opening post are true, then how much better would things be for wildlife if similar pressures had been exerted on cat owners? Perhaps some of the hobbies current issues come from people learning the lessons of cat ownership?


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Take it as patronising if you like . I only answered in a similar vein to you. 

People can learn from this thats why I posted it, food for thought.


----------



## studley (Oct 3, 2010)

*cats*

I don't think you read what i wrote either.
you asked for examples of animals that had been rendered extinct due to the introduction of domestic cats and I gave you one,, the Scottisih wildcat. Becoming extinct due to hybridisation and diseases passed on from domestics like feline leukemia virus.
Eventually with an ever increasing dose of domestic dna they'll just become multicoloured feral moggies, what a tragedy to lose such a stunning and distinctive native feline.
If an Invasive species bill was to be passed the domestic moggy should top the bill! 


CloudForest said:


> your first point shows you didn't actually read what I wrote
> 
> your second point, well, actually I don't see why we should distinguish the two, cats do not make the distinction, its an entirely arbitrary distinction to make, lives are lives, whether they are domestic or wild is irrelevant, either you are against them being killed completely, or you accept it as a natural part of life on this planet
> 
> ...


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

However if you are equating cats with Red Eared Terrapins I dont think that they can be. The Red Ears that were released were by pet keepers many of whom saw the Ningent Turtle Film twenty or twenty five years ago. Most serious Terrapin keepers would not keep this species, thats why education is key.


----------



## Iulia (Mar 2, 2011)

I suppose I struggle a wee bit to see how the domestic cat can be described any more as a non-native species

I don't know how long tbh cats have been around in this country but its quite a few hundred years. They were primarily kept as rodent exterminators.

A role they still cheerfully do in the right circumstances. Most cats in my experience catch way more rats and mice than they do birds.

I live beside woodland, and a lot of animals, esp deer, are killed in dog attacks.

If you legislate against free roaming cats, you really are going to have to have an all dogs on lead law. Really is it practical?


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

I have not once said cats don't hunt, I have simply said that their impact is not what is claimed by the image that started this thread and therefore I do not believe that locking them up in a house is a requirement of responsible care - no one has proved evidence to the contrary, despite the aggressive attitude towards a differing opinion...funny how that's so often the case.

its hilarious that people shout "arrogance" just because I disagree, do you not see the hypocrisy there? (especially given that some of my replies have been censored! ... oh dear..)

LOL

if this thread was started with actual facts, rather than deliberate misinformation used to support a particular agenda, then I'm sure the discussion would be significantly more interesting and worthwhile.


edit: also, I recommend looking up the idea of "Rationalizing a belief", it may be eye opening to some who have a long list of apparently valid reasons for calling people who disagree, "irresponsible" - rationalizing after a belief is established, does not make something true.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I don't know that cats kill many rats . I live in the country and my neighbours keep terriers to keep the rats down .

For the most part I think that dogs should be kept on a lead also . I am going to get flamed here but you have complete control over a dog on a lead and that's not necessarily so off lead.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

CloudForest said:


> I have not once said cats don't hunt, I have simply said that their impact is not what is claimed by the image that started this thread and therefore I do not believe that locking them up in a house is a requirement of responsible care - no one has proved evidence to the contrary, despite the aggressive attitude towards a differing opinion...funny how that's so often the case.
> 
> its hilarious that people shout "arrogance" just because I disagree, do you not see the hypocrisy there? (especially given that some of my replies have been censored! ... oh dear..)
> 
> ...


Obviuosly by your attitude you are not a responsible cat owner.


----------



## Iulia (Mar 2, 2011)

my previous cat was a serious remover of rats from the environment :lol2:

I agree with your point Colin - honestly a dog off the lead is in ALMOST every case as little under control as a cat is

where I live - only a few days ago a dog off the lead chased a deer onto a road - both were killed.

By the logic of protecting the cat/dog and other species, all dogs should be on lead all the time. I've personally known deer, swans, cats, rabbits and deer killed by dogs round here in the last few months.

I think the legislation involved in either just too boggling. 

But more than anything else I don't really like the kind of unbacked up amateur journalism the original flyer showed.

It smacked to me kind of the stuff the APA publish '90% reptiles die in the first year' nonsense.

Are we short of rabbits? Do GM modified foxes kill loads of cats?


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

we are not short of rabbits and if it were rabbits. pigeons ,magpies and rats it wouldnt bother me. But cats dont discriminate. The difference with dogs is that if they worry livestock they can be shot.However, if I were in New Zealand or possibly Australia it would.


----------



## Iulia (Mar 2, 2011)

I'm not sure of the exact law about shooting dogs worrying farm animals?? 

where I am - which is NNR – dogs can't be shot by the staff. So off the lead they can attack and kill other dogs, cats, rabbits, deer, swans, ducks ... 

unless a human is hurt the police really aren't interested. 

the subject of the problems of dogs in the woods comes up regularly at management meetings. Tabby - never.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

colinm said:


> Obviuosly by your attitude you are not a responsible cat owner.


 what attitude? you mean the annoyance I am showing at having people use misinformation to insist that their opinions are correct, and then use that same misinformation to throw personal insults about?

you are supposed to be a mod, and yet you are clearly trolling now.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Iulia said:


> I'm not sure of the exact law about shooting dogs worrying farm animals??
> 
> where I am - which is NNR – dogs can't be shot by the staff. So off the lead they can attack and kill other dogs, cats, rabbits, deer, swans, ducks ...
> 
> ...



Dogs are a problem. Again its down to the owners .


----------



## studley (Oct 3, 2010)

*cats*



feorag said:


> I class myself as a responsible pet owner, who puts the welfare of my pets first. For this reason when I decided keep cats I looked into the best ways of keeping them safe - so I catproofed my garden.
> 
> In almost 30 years of cat ownership/breeding - no cat ever escaped from my garden and in all that time one caught a bird and brought it to me. I took it from him, there was no injury to it, so it didn't need anti-biotics and I set it free. They've also twice found frogs which they stalked with great interest, but left alone and that's the total impact of my 20 cats and numerous kittens on the bird/mammal/reptile population.
> 
> ...


You see this is the part I don't get at all. if I kept cats the above is exactly how i would keep them.
I understand that a lot of owners just don't care about their pets killing a lot of local fauna, but if they love their cats you'd think that the owners would want to keep them safe from harm? 
Thats the bit i don't understand.
I don't know any cat owners near me who haven't at some time had a cat run over, yet the owners don't learn anything from this, they just get another and hope this one doesn't get flattened.
still, repairing the survivors must be a good earner for vets!


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

you need to own a few cats to understand why keeping them in the house is not always an option, some cats do fine as house cats, others do not do well at all, and the cats quality of life is as equally important as whatever opinions a person may have on their hunting activities, or the risks involved with being free roaming.

(the risks are not actually that significant, infact, of the 2 most expensive operations for injury I've had to pay for, both where caused inside the house! apart from 1 cat out of 11, all the other vet treatment involved medical conditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with being outdoors.)

infact, a cat which is kept indoors is significantly more at risk than one which is not, because it will not learn about the dangers in the world at a young enough age to have an impact on their reactions to things like cars, outdoor noises, etc - if a house cat deciedes to make a dash for the open front door one day, as they frequently do, its the house cat which is most at risk imo.

this topic is clearly an emotive one, and relies heavily on biased/misinformation - its easy to make opinions like that, but its not worthwhile, its not going to prevent birds from dying and its not going to stop cats getting into mischief...they wil always get into mischief, indoors or out


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Obviously you havent read the other posts. People are keeping them in avairy type enclosures not just in houses.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

colinm said:


> Obviously you havent read the other posts. People are keeping them in avairy type enclosures not just in houses.


I did read them, and to suggest that every garden can be turned into an aviary is a little short sighted - how do you manage a 100ft garden surrounded by horsechesnut tree's? how many autumn falls do you think the structure could survive? a couple, maybe.

but that is completely beside the point I was making, which was a disagreement with the fundamental reasons behind doing such a thing in the first place.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

CloudForest said:


> in fact, a cat which is kept indoors is significantly more at risk than one which is not, because it will not learn about the dangers in the world at a young enough age to have an impact on their reactions to things like cars, outdoor noises, etc - if a house cat deciedes to make a dash for the open front door one day, as they frequently do, its the house cat which is most at risk imo.


Sorry but I have to disagree with you there.

There's no proof that free roaming from an early age will stop a cat getting injured and certainly not by a car.

Part of responsible ownership is to ensure that cats don't escape from the house and sorry, but I don't think a cat can miss what it's never had. One of the breeds of cat I owned is renowned for loving its freedom and hunting, yet once they were a few years old none of mine ever made a rush for the open front door and showed no desire to escape from the garden.



CloudForest said:


> I did read them, and to suggest that every garden can be turned into an aviary is a little short sighted - how do you manage a 100ft garden surrounded by horsechesnut tree's? how many autumn falls do you think the structure could survive? a couple, maybe.


I sold a kitten to a couple who had a huge garden which totally circled their detached bungalow. Their cats had been allowed to free roam until the day their Birman came home having been shot. He survived that but one day went out and never came back. They managed to build a large enclosure in their garden, (which included trees, which they simply "collared") and an underground entrance from the son's bedroom which meant that they still had walking access all around the house.

Where there's a will there's a way and if you really want to do something to keep your cats safe - then you will.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

there is the well known cliché "you cant teach an old dog new tricks", which infact does not refer to dogs only at all - whether it has been scientifically proven on not, well you are right, i very much doubt it is has ..but my experience has so far told me that it is true.




sure if you really want to do something, you can figure out a way...but there is the problem, I don't see the benefit for either the cat or the wildlife


----------



## GavinMc (Jan 9, 2013)

CloudForest said:


> infact, a cat which is kept indoors is significantly more at risk than one which is not, because it will not learn about the dangers in the world at a young enough age to have an impact on their reactions to things like cars, outdoor noises, etc - if a house cat deciedes to make a dash for the open front door one day, as they frequently do, its the house cat which is most at risk imo.


Let me get this clear. An 'indoor cat' is more at risk of the dangers of living outside than an 'outdoor cat' is? And this is just down to them escaping. Well the easy way to help them with those dangers, instead of chucking them out the house at a young age, is to be a responsible owner and make sure it can't just bolt out the front door. Unless you live in a fully open plan house it's very simple to 'escape proof' your house. And surely letting a young cat, which obviously has no experience on the streets, out is the same as letting out an older 'indoor cat'. 




CloudForest said:


> I did read them, and to suggest that every garden can be turned into an aviary is a little short sighted - how do you manage a 100ft garden surrounded by horsechesnut tree's? how many autumn falls do you think the structure could survive? a couple, maybe.


Are you thinking we mean to turn the whole garden into an enclosed space? I certainly don't mean that. What I'm talking about is an enclosure that would be needed for any other medium sized mammal. The same sort of enclosure you would build for a Genet, Coatimundi, Raccoon or the likes. For some with smaller gardens it would be a great idea to turn the whole thing into an enclosed space, but obviously it isn't needed for everyone.




CloudForest said:


> sure if you really want to do something, you can figure out a way


And that really does sum up your arguement perfectly.



CloudForest said:


> but there is the problem, I don't see the benefit for either the cat or the wildlife


You can't see how your cat/s being in a secure space would benefit the wildlife your cat/s will hunt and kill? Or even how it will benefit your cat/s? Surely you have got to be trying to annoy us? Seriously not seeing the benefits in keeping your cat/s in a safe environment with everything they need? It really does astound me how blind some people can be. 



Gavin.


----------



## johne.ev (Sep 14, 2008)

CloudForest said:


> a dead animal is a dead animal, I cannot understand why anyone would deny a cat fresh raw meat


Because in all the cases I have personally witnessed. They dont actually eat what they kill.
My neighbours cat when it was alive. Would bring home all kinds of bird species, as well as mice, voles & shrews. And that's just what were found on the door step & in the garden. All uneaten but perfectly dead.


----------



## johne.ev (Sep 14, 2008)

Iulia said:


> If you legislate against free roaming cats, you really are going to have to have an all dogs on lead law. Really is it practical?


I believe it should be law that all dogs, when out in public should always be on a lead.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

gavgav04 said:


> Let me get this clear. An 'indoor cat' is more at risk of the dangers of living outside than an 'outdoor cat' is?


yes - just as a child who is never taught how to cross a road, is more at risk from traffic than one who was.

the rest I've already been over and over, until you provide actual evidence to support your view, whats the point in banging on with it? prove to me that you are right with real evidence, rather than misinformation, and I will listen, and this discussion wont go round in circles.





johne.ev said:


> Because in all the cases I have personally witnessed. They dont actually eat what they kill.
> My neighbours cat when it was alive. Would bring home all kinds of bird species, as well as mice, voles & shrews. And that's just what were found on the door step & in the garden. All uneaten but perfectly dead.


for sure some cats don't eat their prey, but the only 2 that I owned who could hunt, always ate their prey, one cat caught a pigeon once many years ago, which it didn't eat, and I suspect it didn't eat it because it was probably diseased

why don't some cats eat their prey, is a very interesting question, and in my experience, most domestic cats do not equal their wild cousins when it comes to hunting ability, a few are excellent hunters, but the rest imo are catching diseased/injured animals, and given that cats rely on their sense of smell to detect good food to eat, I am quite sure that they can tell when an animal is not good to eat, and perhaps that is the real reason they are not eating their prey...

people say that cats are bringing the prey back to the owners as a present, but that imo is just an old wives tale, certainly there is no scientific evidence to support it.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

here are some concrete facts for you, regarding the Thrush

BTO - Breeding Birds of the Wider Countryside: Song Thrush

Numbers crashed because of human activity, but have infact started to recover over the last 20 years - despite the fact that cat numbers have nearly doubled to 8million in the same time! so where is the impact of cats on the Thrush? there is very little, infact, it is humans who have caused the decline of the Thrush, and other song birds.

The RSPB: Advice: Some facts and figures about cats


another fact, cats only catch approx. 20% birds, 80% mice and other rodents.


its easy to form an emotive opinion, it takes effort to look up the ACTUAL numbers and figure out if that opinion is actually valid, or simply a baseless nonsense.


Am I right in assuming that only 4 people on this thread actually owns or has owned cats before? that's what it seems, ironcily...it is an assumption however, so apologies if I am wrong, but it seems that way...


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I really cant see where you are coming from with your figures. The 20% bird;80 % rodent is similar slightly higher than the ratio in the first post for these two types of "prey" . So the R.S.P. B. figures bear out the original post in percentage terms. 

No one is doubting that humans have an effect on wildlife but it must be remembered that we as humans releasing cats into the wild are adding to the problem of human activity.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

you completely skipped over the fact that cat numbers have doubled in the same time that Thrush numbers have also started to recover (after being decimated by human activity)

infact I have been over this topic myself over the years, and already know that cats have very little impact on song bird numbers...I was providing a couple of links in the hope that perhaps people may investigate further for themselves, rather than sticking to their opinions regardless of the actual evidence


the ratio is not particularly relevant, I just thought it was interesting - you skipped over the relevant bit of information, probably because it doesn't support your opinion...don't worry, i don't hold that against you, its a very human trait that we are all guilty of more often than not.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Thanks for your reply , you have gone from the insulting to the patronising. You seem to be the only one on here who doesnt see that cats have an effect on wildlife. Feel free to live in your own rose tinted wonderland where you wont take reasonable procedures to stop your pets having any effect on wildlife or indeed being harmed by human activities.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

lol you are the one who has been constantly insulting thru this whole thread, infact.

I have asked for evidence, none has been provided whatsoever - I have provided several links which disprove the points being put forward...so please don't try to switch it back on me.

if you feel patronized because I point out that you blatantly and deliberately ignore actual facts because they do not support your argument, well, that says allot about the pointlessness of this entire thread; and lends more support to my opinion that this thread was started purely to Troll.

(actually the thread title says it all, was clearly intended to cause an emotive and polarized reaction)


----------



## 955i (Aug 17, 2007)

CloudForest said:


> prove it, where is the evidence?
> 
> and no a sensationalist meme with misinformation on it, is not evidence.
> 
> let me see the links that prove I am talking nonsense, believe it or not, I have a brain, and I do not ignore evidence...unlike many it seems.


New Research Suggests Outdoor Cats Kill More Wildlife Than Previously Thought

US granted, but the situation is the same

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephens_Island_wren

You say humans are more responsible, who introduced the domestic cat?

Your argument that we have wild cats and therefore all is OK is a complete fallacy.

Some people possibly have a bigger brain and evidence to back comments up!! : victory:


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

955i said:


> New Research Suggests Outdoor Cats Kill More Wildlife Than Previously Thought
> 
> US granted, but the situation is the same
> 
> ...



that study is massively flawed, for a start: "The new study does not take into consideration the impacts of the estimated 60 million feral cats that roam the United States"

the only useful information is a comparison of bird numbers VS cat numbers, if cats really did cause a decline in bird numbers, it would be apparent, but as I showed, that is not the case in the UK, numbers have infact recovered, while the number of cats has doubled - that single fact, shows that the belief that cats have a significant impact on song birds (well, the Thrush in this case), and imo probably most species, is entirely untrue

my comparison of wild cats is not a fallacy, its an opinion, it is a fact that wild cats exist, and i don't really see what your point is? anyway...not that relevant tbh, that was 1 rather insignificant point I was making, which was clearly taken completely the wrong way.


----------



## studley (Oct 3, 2010)

*cats*



CloudForest said:


> yes - just as a child who is never taught how to cross a road, is more at risk from traffic than one who was.
> 
> the rest I've already been over and over, until you provide actual evidence to support your view, whats the point in banging on with it? prove to me that you are right with real evidence, rather than misinformation, and I will listen, and this discussion wont go round in circles.
> 
> ...


Some people I know got through 2 cats before they gave up on cats because "they keep getting runover!" Once they were old enough they were let out, but didn't get a chance to learn much! It never occured to them to just keep them safe. They never had a chance to learn about roads, How do you teach a cat the green cross code anyway? They're just lucky till they're not.
Other friends had 2 cats, now down to 1 as the other that was out from an early age and apparently road savvy died after 4 years (yes it got runover!) The second being a rehomed indoor cat is pretty agoraphobic and won't leave their back garden, that ones doing just fine. 



It really isn't just diseased animals/birds being caught. It doesn't take a brilliant hunter to easily wipe out whole nests of birds. As they fledge they are very vulnerable and any cat could catch them.
My bosses cat has caught has even caught a kingfisher!

The most devastating predator of all our garden birds proved beyond any doubt, is I'm afraid to say the domestic cat.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

there is no doubt that some cats can hunt, that's not in dispute, what is in dispute is that they are "The most devastating predator", the numbers do not support that opinion at all (besides the fact that humans are!), and an opinion based on misinformation, or worse, nothing at all, is not helpful in any way


sorry to hear your friends cats did not deal with roads well, always sad to hear; but out of 11 cats, only 1 has ever been hit by a car...and that was on a 20mph speed limit road, I believe the car was speeding, and either negligently hit the cat, or intentionally did so - once again the issue imo comes down to human behaviour, some people will not watch their speed when they see a cat, many do (I will always stop for an animal in the road, from rats to foxes, birds or cats, or anything else that might be in my way!)


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150626105139.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fplants_animals+%28Plants+%26+Animals+News+--+ScienceDaily%29


Le chat, ce tueur que son maître ignore | Slate.fr

Halter ignorieren Schäden durch ihre Katzen - Spektrum der Wissenschaft

Seems the French and Germans agree too.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

colinm said:


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150626105139.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fplants_animals+%28Plants+%26+Animals+News+--+ScienceDaily%29


I don't understand the point of this "study", what have peoples perceptions got to do with actual facts, numbers of animals killed compared with the number of cats in the country compared to the change in numbers of both? perceptions are important, politically, but not scientifically 



> Le chat, ce tueur que son maître ignore | Slate.fr
> 
> 
> Halter ignorieren Schäden durch ihre Katzen - Spektrum der Wissenschaft
> ...


are these the same study? I use IE and it doesn't translate properly, if they are the same study, well, question above applies...

but if they are an actual comparison of numbers of birds and cats over the last century, then i'll install chrome and read...


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

It's an irrelevance how many cats there are . There is no need to release cats into the wild. They can be kept indoors or in enclosures. There would not be any debate then . We as humans do not release any other predators on a daily basis.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

colinm said:


> It's an irrelevance how many cats there are . There is no need to release cats into the wild. They can be kept indoors or in enclosures. There would not be any debate then . We as humans do not release any other predators on a daily basis.


how is it irrelevant?

Cat numbers have doubled in the past 20 years, but song bird numbers have increased.

that is not irrelevant, that is highly significant, and pretty much rules out the argument that cats are responsible for the decline of bird numbers, you may choose to ignore the fact, but as I said, that makes the whole discussion pointless...


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

So cats only kill songbirds then ? 

If people released dogs daily and they killed wildlife there would be an outrage. There is absolutely no reason to release cats .


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

colinm said:


> So cats only kill songbirds then ?
> 
> If people released dogs daily and they killed wildlife there would be an outrage. There is absolutely no reason to release cats .


dogs do hunt, they just don't have the opposable thumbs required to operate a shotgun, so on the whole, they are relegated to retrieving, pointing or chasing for humans; but they still hunt.


yes I realize that my point is a little off the point, but that is my point, you are ignoring facts because they don't support your opinion

if you have numbers to support any claim that cats are responsible for the extinction of any animal in the UK, post them up...


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

The original post made no claims to extinction of British wildlife. I will pull out some figures for cat related extinctions in other countries, notably Australia and New Zealand.

So why do you release cats on a daily basis to kill other species ? You can keep them as house cats or in aviary type enclosures. There is absolutely no need to release them.


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

the longest I kept a cat indoors was 18months, when I lived in a house with no garden access, the cat developed pica syndrome (eating things like metal, plastic etc) and various medical complications because of it - this vanished when I moved house and let him use the garden

fact of the matter is, it is not acceptable, psychologically, to keep all cats indoors, or even in an outdoor cage, some cats adapt to it, many do not.

fact is, human behaviour is FAR more of an impact on wildlife than cats ever will be, so if you really want to demand that cats be psychologically tortured to satisfy your principals, you need to leave modern life behind and put those same demands on yourself - because regardless of how ecologically minded you may believe yourself to be, the fact that you are using a computer, is absolute proof that your behaviour has played a role in the destruction of natural habitats, from the plastic case, to the rare earth metals in the chips, and the electricity powering it...you and I are far more responsible for the destruction of species than any cat.

...but that's ok right? coz humans are special, we have a right to impose demands, despite the fact we ignore them when it suits us?


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Pysochological damage ? You have heard from cat owners who do this on this thread yet you choose to ignore it for some reason.

There is no doubt that humans do cause problems , of course they do but I dont see the relevance to this thread. Unless of course its the fact that they let cats free.


----------

