7 ms·

Nowadays we shouldn't be allowing cats to be outside unsupervised in any case, they can be devastating to local wildlife, including these clever cockatoos.

by flukus 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Ma8ee 4y ago
I know that cats eat a lot of birds, but I wonder how often cats really is the limiting factor of the population. Other things like scarcity of food or nesting places might often be more important.
- shakna 4y ago
  When you look at the numbers, it is very, very, hard to deny that free-ranging unowned cats are the largest limiting factor to the population. The size of the cat population causing a mortality swing of 24% in birds, is not some small number that might be masked by another closesly related statistic. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    The number of cats in an area should be pretty closely related to the number of people living in the area. The more cats, the more people, and it would not be hard to believe that having more people in an area might lead to more environmental destruction and displaced habitats.
    - shakna 4y ago
      The control featured in the paper is Europe, where the domestic cat is younger and not as well adapted, environmentally, as that in America. There is significantly less environmental destruction, despite the controls featuring similar numbers of the animals. Simply having cities has not had a similar effect.
- speedbird 4y ago
  Armageddon Domestic cats are killing an estimated 230M native Australian birds, reptiles and mammals every year https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/15/keep-pet-cats-indoors-say-researchers-who-found-they-kill-230m-native-australian-animals-each-year https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/15/keep-pet...
  - kuschku 4y ago
    The situation in australia is very different from other regions, in a previous discussion on HN we've already established that for central europe, domestic cats have a negligible effect on wildlife. (As in, orders of magnitudes below the next higher causes, which are mostly wild cats and pesticides).
    - grecy 4y ago
      > As in, orders of magnitudes below the next higher causes, which are mostly wild cats and pesticides I'm not sure if you're aware, wild cats are a direct result of domestic cats.
      - samatman 4y ago
        This is backward, the domestic cat is a descendent of the Eurasian wildcats. A substantial number of the wild cats in Europe are feral, but so what. Same cat, same niche, same place.
      - neolithicum 4y ago
        Perhaps they meant European wildcats[1], not feral cats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wildcat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wildcat
  - Ma8ee 4y ago
    And how big part of the population is that? I can’t say if that is a big or a small number without knowing the total population.
  - lapinot 4y ago
- grecy 4y ago
  "I know we messed with the environment and the result has been devastating, but we should remember the environment is a harsh place and likely lots of stuff would have died even if we didn't meddle." Cats in Australia kill a total of 377 MILLION birds per year[1] (99% of which are native species) [1] https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/publications-and-tools/how-many-birds-are-killed-by-cats-in-australia https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/publications-and-to...
  - Ma8ee 4y ago
    I can’t really tell if that is a very high number or not without knowing the population of birds.
    - grecy 4y ago
      If 377 Million people were killed annually by something, would it make a difference what the population was? It's a horrific number whether you've got a population of a billion or 10 billion.
      - Ma8ee 4y ago
        Of course it would. About 43000 people die in car accidents in the US every year. That is apparently considered acceptable in a population of 332 million people. If the population was one million people, what would most likely be considered horrendous. I admit that my standards regarding death of critters are somewhat different than death of people, but the total population do matter there too. 6 million deers are shot in the US every year in a population of 25 million. People don't seem to be very upset about that, but rather concerned that the population still is rising. Many people are very upset that any rhinos at all are killed. And as the example with deers show, you can cull some populations quite heavily without any apparent ill effects.
the_third_wave 4y ago
In all its 13 years (and counting) our cat has taken maybe 5 birds, this includes the swallow he noticed flying by at ~1.5 meters height upon which he jumped straight up in the air and caught it. Sad for the swallow but it was quite a feat of cat-dexterity. Anyway, he doesn't catch birds since there are more than enough voles, mice, rats, squirrels and weasels - no idea why he catches those but he's done so several times - around to keep him satisfied. He eats nearly everything he catches but tends to leave the weasels mostly uneaten. He also does not like squirrel tails which became clear when I cleaned up under the stairs where I found 5 of them. Maybe I should add I live on a farm? If it were not for the cat we'd have to take care of the vermin he dispatches in some other way so hooray for the cat.
- tapland 4y ago
  Very few of the catches are usually known to the owner. It’s tricky to study since you pretty much need to introduce cats to areas with stable bird populations. We’ve had birds relocate and start new nests elsewhere because they see cats around though, and even magpies are extremely reluctant to eat food put out for them near the yard where the cats sometimes hang out.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > In all its 13 years (and counting) our cat has taken maybe 5 birds reminder: what you see is not what you get. cats kill between 1.4 billion and 3.7 billion birds a year, study says. Outdoor cats are the leading cause of death among both birds and mammals in the United States, according to a new study, killing 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion birds each year. The mammalian toll is even higher, concluded researchers from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ranging from 6.9 billion to 20.7 billion annually.
  - samatman 4y ago
    Remember, every time you see statistics like this, that the cats aren't fungible! America has a large feral cat population, which lives on birds and mice, not cat food. Your numbers aren't at all inconsistent with OPs.
shapefrog 4y ago
Its the natural order of things. Local wildlife can be devesating to other local wildlife, can be devestating to the whole ecosystem.
- Scarblac 4y ago
  Yes, but the cat is fed inside the house as well, leading to a huge overpopulation of predators. That's not the natural order of things. A normal predator that devastates the local ecosystem because there are too many will run out of food and then go down in numbers until some sort of equilibrium is restored. Doesn't happen with pets.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    On top of that cats are actually not local to most places in the world. So they are an introduced predator which the local wildlife didn't develop defenses for. I also wonder if you would accept the same argument if the neighbors dog would maul your cat (or even your child)
    - Ensorceled 4y ago
      > I also wonder if you would accept the same argument if the neighbors dog would maul your cat Some of my neighbours are incensed that coyotes are eating the neighbourhood cats ...
      - shapefrog 4y ago
        The cats are provided as sacrafice to protect the children, once the coyotes get a taste for the flesh of children the rest of humanity will be in danger.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Its the natural order of things So was The Plague
- thatguy0900 4y ago
pengstrom 4y ago
This is why you put a little bell on the cat's collar. That way it can't really sneak up undetected.
- xani_ 4y ago
  "Those humans are nasty, now every time I hear a loud bell it means one of my friends has died" - local bird, probably
- murrayb 4y ago
  Former multiple cat owner here, every cat I have owned hunted successfully with multiple bells on their collars. My neighbours cat has bells and hunts in my yard. Bells don't work or don't work reliably enough.
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    The chipmunks around my house are dumb af. They get scared of the cat, but after 2 minutes of sitting still they're running right by him again. It's almost like they evolved to be food.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Bells don't work. Cats are more than comfortable staying still enough to keep them silent. Additionally, bells don't impact the other damage outdoors cats do to gardens, the deceased life expectancy, and the increased chance of disease. Do not let your cats outside.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - noir_lord 4y ago
      > Bells don't work. Cats are more than comfortable staying still enough to keep them silent. Saw this with the neighbours cat, little sod is so smooth he doesn't ring the bell until he pounces and by then the bird already knows it's in deep shit. My pair are indoor cats - they live longer and we are near a very busy road.
nibbleshifter 4y ago
This depends on where. In the UK, the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) has stated repeatedly that cat predation is having no real impact on bird populations. In Australia? Much bigger issue.
bearmode 4y ago
Fully depends on the local wildlife. If the local fauna naturally devleoped alongside wildcats, such as in the UK, then outdoor cats are of very little concern to wildlife populations. If they didn't, such as in Aus, then yeah they can be devastating.

Nowadays we shouldn't be allowing cats to be outside unsupervised in any case, they can be devastating to local wildlife, including these clever cockatoos.

by flukus 4y ago

Nowadays we shouldn't be allowing cats to be outside unsupervised in any case, they can be devastating to local wildlife, including these clever cockatoos.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Ma8ee 4y ago

I know that cats eat a lot of birds, but I wonder how often cats really is the limiting factor of the population. Other things like scarcity of food or nesting places might often be more important.

shakna 4y ago
When you look at the numbers, it is very, very, hard to deny that free-ranging unowned cats are the largest limiting factor to the population. The size of the cat population causing a mortality swing of 24% in birds, is not some small number that might be masked by another closesly related statistic. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  The number of cats in an area should be pretty closely related to the number of people living in the area. The more cats, the more people, and it would not be hard to believe that having more people in an area might lead to more environmental destruction and displaced habitats.
  - shakna 4y ago
    The control featured in the paper is Europe, where the domestic cat is younger and not as well adapted, environmentally, as that in America. There is significantly less environmental destruction, despite the controls featuring similar numbers of the animals. Simply having cities has not had a similar effect.
speedbird 4y ago
Armageddon Domestic cats are killing an estimated 230M native Australian birds, reptiles and mammals every year https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/15/keep-pet-cats-indoors-say-researchers-who-found-they-kill-230m-native-australian-animals-each-year https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/15/keep-pet...
- kuschku 4y ago
  The situation in australia is very different from other regions, in a previous discussion on HN we've already established that for central europe, domestic cats have a negligible effect on wildlife. (As in, orders of magnitudes below the next higher causes, which are mostly wild cats and pesticides).
  - grecy 4y ago
    > As in, orders of magnitudes below the next higher causes, which are mostly wild cats and pesticides I'm not sure if you're aware, wild cats are a direct result of domestic cats.
    - samatman 4y ago
      This is backward, the domestic cat is a descendent of the Eurasian wildcats. A substantial number of the wild cats in Europe are feral, but so what. Same cat, same niche, same place.
    - neolithicum 4y ago
      Perhaps they meant European wildcats[1], not feral cats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wildcat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wildcat
- Ma8ee 4y ago
  And how big part of the population is that? I can’t say if that is a big or a small number without knowing the total population.
- lapinot 4y ago
grecy 4y ago
"I know we messed with the environment and the result has been devastating, but we should remember the environment is a harsh place and likely lots of stuff would have died even if we didn't meddle." Cats in Australia kill a total of 377 MILLION birds per year[1] (99% of which are native species) [1] https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/publications-and-tools/how-many-birds-are-killed-by-cats-in-australia https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/publications-and-to...
- Ma8ee 4y ago
  I can’t really tell if that is a very high number or not without knowing the population of birds.
  - grecy 4y ago
    If 377 Million people were killed annually by something, would it make a difference what the population was? It's a horrific number whether you've got a population of a billion or 10 billion.
    - Ma8ee 4y ago
      Of course it would. About 43000 people die in car accidents in the US every year. That is apparently considered acceptable in a population of 332 million people. If the population was one million people, what would most likely be considered horrendous. I admit that my standards regarding death of critters are somewhat different than death of people, but the total population do matter there too. 6 million deers are shot in the US every year in a population of 25 million. People don't seem to be very upset about that, but rather concerned that the population still is rising. Many people are very upset that any rhinos at all are killed. And as the example with deers show, you can cull some populations quite heavily without any apparent ill effects.

the_third_wave 4y ago

In all its 13 years (and counting) our cat has taken maybe 5 birds, this includes the swallow he noticed flying by at ~1.5 meters height upon which he jumped straight up in the air and caught it. Sad for the swallow but it was quite a feat of cat-dexterity. Anyway, he doesn't catch birds since there are more than enough voles, mice, rats, squirrels and weasels - no idea why he catches those but he's done so several times - around to keep him satisfied. He eats nearly everything he catches but tends to leave the weasels mostly uneaten. He also does not like squirrel tails which became clear when I cleaned up under the stairs where I found 5 of them. Maybe I should add I live on a farm? If it were not for the cat we'd have to take care of the vermin he dispatches in some other way so hooray for the cat.

tapland 4y ago
Very few of the catches are usually known to the owner. It’s tricky to study since you pretty much need to introduce cats to areas with stable bird populations. We’ve had birds relocate and start new nests elsewhere because they see cats around though, and even magpies are extremely reluctant to eat food put out for them near the yard where the cats sometimes hang out.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> In all its 13 years (and counting) our cat has taken maybe 5 birds reminder: what you see is not what you get. cats kill between 1.4 billion and 3.7 billion birds a year, study says. Outdoor cats are the leading cause of death among both birds and mammals in the United States, according to a new study, killing 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion birds each year. The mammalian toll is even higher, concluded researchers from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ranging from 6.9 billion to 20.7 billion annually.
- samatman 4y ago
  Remember, every time you see statistics like this, that the cats aren't fungible! America has a large feral cat population, which lives on birds and mice, not cat food. Your numbers aren't at all inconsistent with OPs.

shapefrog 4y ago

Its the natural order of things. Local wildlife can be devesating to other local wildlife, can be devestating to the whole ecosystem.

Scarblac 4y ago
Yes, but the cat is fed inside the house as well, leading to a huge overpopulation of predators. That's not the natural order of things. A normal predator that devastates the local ecosystem because there are too many will run out of food and then go down in numbers until some sort of equilibrium is restored. Doesn't happen with pets.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  On top of that cats are actually not local to most places in the world. So they are an introduced predator which the local wildlife didn't develop defenses for. I also wonder if you would accept the same argument if the neighbors dog would maul your cat (or even your child)
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    > I also wonder if you would accept the same argument if the neighbors dog would maul your cat Some of my neighbours are incensed that coyotes are eating the neighbourhood cats ...
    - shapefrog 4y ago
      The cats are provided as sacrafice to protect the children, once the coyotes get a taste for the flesh of children the rest of humanity will be in danger.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Its the natural order of things So was The Plague
thatguy0900 4y ago

pengstrom 4y ago

This is why you put a little bell on the cat's collar. That way it can't really sneak up undetected.

xani_ 4y ago
"Those humans are nasty, now every time I hear a loud bell it means one of my friends has died" - local bird, probably
murrayb 4y ago
Former multiple cat owner here, every cat I have owned hunted successfully with multiple bells on their collars. My neighbours cat has bells and hunts in my yard. Bells don't work or don't work reliably enough.
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  The chipmunks around my house are dumb af. They get scared of the cat, but after 2 minutes of sitting still they're running right by him again. It's almost like they evolved to be food.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Bells don't work. Cats are more than comfortable staying still enough to keep them silent. Additionally, bells don't impact the other damage outdoors cats do to gardens, the deceased life expectancy, and the increased chance of disease. Do not let your cats outside.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - noir_lord 4y ago
    > Bells don't work. Cats are more than comfortable staying still enough to keep them silent. Saw this with the neighbours cat, little sod is so smooth he doesn't ring the bell until he pounces and by then the bird already knows it's in deep shit. My pair are indoor cats - they live longer and we are near a very busy road.

nibbleshifter 4y ago

This depends on where. In the UK, the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) has stated repeatedly that cat predation is having no real impact on bird populations. In Australia? Much bigger issue.

bearmode 4y ago

Fully depends on the local wildlife. If the local fauna naturally devleoped alongside wildcats, such as in the UK, then outdoor cats are of very little concern to wildlife populations. If they didn't, such as in Aus, then yeah they can be devastating.