7 ms·
> This is a ridiculous point to waffle on: pet cats should no more be allowed to roam around at will than should pet dogs, horses, pythons, or pot-bellied pigs.
by lnanek2 10y ago
> This is a ridiculous point to waffle on: pet cats should no more be allowed to roam around at will than should pet dogs, horses, pythons, or pot-bellied pigs.
Actually, my Dad grew up on a mountain where, every day after school, he would come home and gather up the pig and cows that had been let free to eat for the day. So there's certainly use cases for letting a pig roam free and gather some forage. By the time I was growing up we had chickens, which had to be brought in at night to prevent predators from eating them, but otherwise could roam the yard to eat worms and the like.
Also a horse that kept the grass in the yard short without us having to mow it. There were goats, but they weren't allowed free mostly because they went and ate mountain laurel and poisoned themselves.
It's kind of strange to take a working animal like a cat, bred for pest control, and stick in a little indoor room and never let them out. Did farmers originally lock up their barn cats in the barns? I don't think so. It's actually a problem when they accidentally get locked up in a shed or a car or something, because they aren't out doing their jobs.
Seems nuts to me that the author belittles letting them outside.
- mikestew 10y agoActually, my Dad grew up on a mountain where, every day after school, he would come home and gather up the pig and cows that had been let free to eat for the day. The statement you quoted said cats "should be no more allowed to roam than <other domesticated livestock>". Your father's livestock were allowed to roam. Ergo, maybe the author wasn't talking about the farm your father grew up on. Something something false equivalencies or something. Did farmers originally lock up their barn cats in the barns? Did Jesus have a pet cat? No. Cats are the devil. Or maybe the author was not prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution. We have a litany of examples of "Europeans brings domestic cats to newly-explored island, ecological devastation ensues", I don't think we need to digress with stories unrelated to the environments to which the author refers (which I gather to be urban and suburban environments).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- khalilravanna 10y agoAre you suggesting we should ignore an ecological disaster because the perpetrators are "just doing their job"? Citing the historical reasons for their existence doesn't really help the case that they aren't a problem now because the exact reason that it's now and not then. Cats may have had a purpose when they were introduced but in most cases they don't actually serve that purpose anymore. And we can ignore that point entirely because feral cats don't even fit the definition of animals with a job to begin with. They aren't owned by anyone, they are just another animal in the environment. One that happens to be an invasive species causing extraordinary damage to the environment.
- BFatts 10y agoJust stop. Stop bickering about cats being the problem. The problem is humans... We are the problem. Their existence is due to us. Their domestication is due to us.
- smallnamespace 10y agoCertainly. So what should humans do about the cats?
- ferentchak 10y agoIn practice it seems bring them snacks and put them in cute sweaters.
- Kliment 10y agoSpay/neuter your pet. It's the most effective thing to do.
- tunesmith 10y agoI did some back-of-the-envelope math a while back that showed that if we wanted to make demand-of-pets match the supply-of-cats-and-dogs in the US, we'd basically each have to have one pet, at all times, for our entire lives. So, a family of four would need four pets. New baby: additional pet. Pet dies: get a new pet. One for each person at all times. Barring that, if you want to minimize suffering of future stray cats/dogs (or limit environmental impact), it makes sense to do a one-time massive nationwide effort of scooping up all stray cats and dogs, and either spaying/neutering them, or culling them.
- MrMullen 10y ago> out doing their jobs. That IS the problem.
- upofadown 10y agoLivestock allowed to roam in the wilderness can be very destructive. Is that sort of thing still done there?
- wil421 10y ago"Wilderness" most likely meaning the wilderness on your fenced in but very large property. IIRC some cattle out West are allowed to graze on government/public land. Later in the season when it's time to get them back to the farm they check their brands so they know which Cattle belong to their farm.
- takk309 10y agoMany states in the west still have free range laws allowing ranchers to let their livestock roam about on public lands.
- ScottBurson 10y agoI have owned cats my entire adult life (I'm 58) and have never allowed them outside. They do just fine indoors. They also live longer, healthier lives, with less disease and much less danger from cars, raccoons, etc. And they don't bother the neighbors. In the country, I could imagine letting cats outside -- though only after getting them neutered or spayed -- but in the city or suburbs, where I have lived, keeping them inside makes more sense.
- jahewson 10y ago> healthier lives, with less disease Seems unlikely. Citation needed.
- smallnamespace 10y agohttps://www.vetinfo.com/indoor-outdoor-cat-life-expectancy.html https://www.vetinfo.com/indoor-outdoor-cat-life-expectancy.h... 'A pet that spends more time outdoors may live on average 2 to 3 years less than a cat that lives exclusively indoors.'
- gumby 10y agoYes but it's not clear that the life expectancy is shortened by disease rather than accident (interactions with cars, coyotes or unpleasant people, for example). That indoor cats live longer seems reasonably well attested. However here's some anecdata: sum of my parents' 8 indoor/outdoor cats + my 3 indoor/outdoor cats: none have lived less than 13 years (two made it to 18). My parents two indoor-only cats both died before reaching 13. I have assumed the cats that go outside survived due to the low number of vehicles and predators they had to deal with.
- eridius 10y agoIt seems kind of obvious that indoor cats would have less disease. Outdoor cats are exposed to a lot more than indoor cats are. And there's a few big ones, like Feline leukemia or Feline Aids, that indoor cats simply don't get because they don't come into contact with other cats that have them. As long as the cats eat a healthy diet and have enough exercise, indoor cats should be expected to live longer than outdoor cats on the average.
- trhway 10y agopeople gather wild bird eggs for food as a delicacy in city parks. Yet we blame the wild bird decimation (those birds who was able to survive in already tough city environment created by humans) in cities on cats. Cats don't eat eggs, rats do. Cats control rats. Cats also able to catch and eat an ill bird. It is pretty healthy coexistence until humans forcefully insert themselves. And it is so typical of the human race to blame somebody else for the harm humans create. I mean just look at the environmental damage, including the damage to birds population, resulting from production of that burger you've just ate for lunch.
- geebee 10y agoWere your dad's pigs allowed to wander over to his neighbor's vegetable garden?
- billiam 10y agoUh, the fantasy world your dad described is not the real world. Cows are one thing, they are too big to lose except perhaps in India, but do you have any idea what environmental damage is being done by feral pigs that were "let free to eat for the day' and never came back? If you want to domesticate an animal to work for you, then you take responsibility for it and all it does, plain and simple. Eventually we will use DNA and chipping to charge people for the costs of their "companion" animals, which are only now becoming apparent. It should not be too surprising what apex predators like cats (we make them tiny, but they are at the top of the food chain nonetheless) can do to ecosystems if crazy people (us) confuse them with cuddly toys and breed and feed them without control.
- nornagest 10y ago> It should not be too surprising what apex predators like cats (we make them tiny, but they are at the top of the food chain nonetheless) can do to ecosystems if crazy people (us) confuse them with cuddly toys and breed and feed them without control. Just for nitpicking: How can they be "apex predators" "at the top of the food chain" when they're eaten by coyotes e.g.?
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoDifferent apex predators sometimes compete. Humans, for instance, can be eaten by lions, but we're apex predators nonetheless. The point of being an apex predator is that you're not a staple of anyone else's diet.
- nornagest 10y agoThanks for the clarification.