5 ms·
This. People in suburban and urban areas should be banned from having outdoor cats, period.
by gaoshan 7y ago
This. People in suburban and urban areas should be banned from having outdoor cats, period.
- coldtea 7y agoYes, let's make the life of a pet miserable so we can have urban/suburban birds... As if the problem is the loss of birds in Manhattan or Queens, and not the loss of birds in millions of acres of rural USA (where cats are not really the problem), for example...
- wavefunction 7y agoI guess if those are our options then better for all if your cat is inside safe from cars and predators and yay we get birds!
- lawlessone 7y ago>Yes, let's make the life of a pet miserable so we can have urban/suburban birds... Responsible people don't let their dogs roam the streets as they can be a threat to strangers, children etc. why should we treat cat's any differently especially when cats kill far more.
- Buttons840 7y agoThe reason you gave for not allowing dogs to roam does not apply to cats.
- Angostura 7y agoWe shouldn't be making like for pets more miserable. We should be explaining to people the damage that cats to to the local ecology and dissuading them from having them. A fun talk I had with my kids.
- icebraining 7y agoKids are far more destructive for the environment than cats, though.
- simonh 7y agoAllowing one damaging thing isn't a good enough reason for allowing another damaging thing. In both cases the costs and benefits need to stand on their own merits.
- icebraining 7y agoSure, but it still reads like a guy idling his Hummer so he can explain the environmental effects of someone's bicycle.
- icebraining 7y agoActually, no, I don't agree with that. It's more of a balancing act than a piecemeal analysis. Being generally frugal leaves you more space to waste a few resources on specific things. Now, some things are over the limit regardless of how frugal you are generally, and pet cats may or may not be one of those.
- simonh 7y agoIt seems like here you’re arguing that banning some damaging things might make some others allowable. That’s the inverse of the argument I was discussing. I understand the argument and it’s reasonable, but in the case if each activity under consideration, they have to be assessed relative to the total harm to the environment, not to directly against each other individually. But there could be a hierarchy of comparison. Still, as I said this is the inverse case to the one I was replying to, which I still think is completely unreasonable.
- PhasmaFelis 7y agoSource on that? Most kids don't make a habit of killing local wildlife. Or are you using "kids" as a proxy for "habitat loss from rising human population"?
- coldtea 7y agoWell, an urban centre doesn't have much "local ecology" to begin with...
- Kaiyou 7y agoThe only birds in my city are pidgeons (that defecate everywhere), sparrows and crows. At least the only ones I actually see.
- Ensorceled 7y agoOr, you know, don't enslave cats in miserable settings.
- nradov 7y agoI am fine with cats being miserable. That is an acceptable outcome.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoCats are very useful for removing rats. Cat ban is considered harmful.
- marcosdumay 7y agoHawks, owls and snakes are much more useful for removing rats, and cats are about as useful for removing those as they are for removing rats. I do not support a cat ban, but that argument is not a good one.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoIs there a way for me to reliably employ a hawk, owl, or snake around my property?