4 ms·

> Free-ranging cats on islands have caused or contributed to 33 (14%) of the modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions recorded by the International Union for

by Brybry 6mo ago

> Free-ranging cats on islands have caused or contributed to 33 (14%) of the modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions recorded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List [1] Cats are probably a leading cause of mortality in birds. [2] Domestic cats are not native to North America. The birds here would not have evolved to avoid them (and beyond that, domestic cat numbers are not limited by prey availability because they're pets bred and fed by humans). You'll find plenty of studies with evidence that domestic cats are probably bad for bird populations. [3][4] But to be fair, buildings/glass windows kill a lot of birds too. [5] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 [2] https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds#:~:text=Top%20Threats%20to%20Birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds#:~:tex... [3] https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/7/322 https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/7/322 [4] https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 [5] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306362 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

sillysaurusx 6mo ago
Thank you for the well-sourced reply. Suppose it's true that cats are bad for bird populations. The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat. More than that, that cats should be imprisoned for their entire lives, when they naturally want to roam. Someone can take one side of this ethical debate or the other, and both sides probably won't agree. I personally find it sad that people would place the well-being of birds above that of a wonderful, furry companion that clearly belongs to someone. The logic also doesn't quite line up: I was hoping someone would try to justify why it's okay to kill flies but not birds, since that's the real counterargument to this one. Especially when they kill flies with their own hands. So much of life boils down to "we're the apex species and we do what we want." But such is life. I find it difficult not to call out the absurdities when they appear, though. To the topic at hand, how exactly is this quantified? I suspect that word "contributed" is doing a lot of work here. [2] seems to admit as much: > True estimates of mortality are difficult to determine. However, recent studies have synthesized the best available data to estimated ranges of mortality to bird populations in North America from some of the most common, human-caused sources of bird mortality. The numbers in [2] are admittedly pretty startling. But it looks like they come from one report labeled "2013a". Any info on where to find it, or what it even is? Otherwise it's easy to call [2] a citation when in fact no evidence whatsoever is being presente. [4] is much better. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 But cats are still only a contributory factor, not the main cause; the report says they're the second leading cause of admissions, not the first. So, high, and worth thinking about. But again, the cost here is "removing, by force, someone's beloved pet." I'm not above saying that we should probably care about cats more than birds, because of the emotional bonds they form with humans. After all, that's why we're fine with flies being killed, right? No emotional bonds.
- john_strinlai 6mo ago
  >The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat. the implication is that if you want a cat, you should be responsible and keep it indoors. >But again, the cost here is "removing, by force, someone's beloved pet." no, the cost is keeping your cat indoors.
  - sillysaurusx 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - john_strinlai 6mo ago
      >If you're not going to bother putting in any effort into the debate, please don't participate at all. you are "debating" against a fictional argument. no one is saying that it is okay to steal or "remove by force" someones pet. they presented you with several citations about how damaging house cats are (and there are several more, you can start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife) and you said... "nu uh". >I'm looking after for my cat's wellbeing, not some bird's wildly selfish statement.
      - sillysaurusx 6mo ago
        Once again: You kill flies. Sometimes dozens of them. Your conscience is clear. That's wildly selfish of you, yet you don't seem to care about the flies. Why not? They're just as much a part of the ecosystem as the birds. Also, this entire discussion is off-topic. The point was for vets to verify microchips, something directly related to the article.
        john_strinlai 6mo ago
        you literally just quoted something about "respond to the central argument" to me. instead of following your own advice, you are closing your eyes, saying "off-topic" and yelling "what about!". all the while, ignoring the entire argument being put forth (alongside the dozens of citations that back the argument up). i feel bad for your neighbors.

by Brybry 6mo ago

sillysaurusx 6mo ago

Thank you for the well-sourced reply. Suppose it's true that cats are bad for bird populations. The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat. More than that, that cats should be imprisoned for their entire lives, when they naturally want to roam. Someone can take one side of this ethical debate or the other, and both sides probably won't agree. I personally find it sad that people would place the well-being of birds above that of a wonderful, furry companion that clearly belongs to someone. The logic also doesn't quite line up: I was hoping someone would try to justify why it's okay to kill flies but not birds, since that's the real counterargument to this one. Especially when they kill flies with their own hands. So much of life boils down to "we're the apex species and we do what we want." But such is life. I find it difficult not to call out the absurdities when they appear, though. To the topic at hand, how exactly is this quantified? I suspect that word "contributed" is doing a lot of work here. [2] seems to admit as much: > True estimates of mortality are difficult to determine. However, recent studies have synthesized the best available data to estimated ranges of mortality to bird populations in North America from some of the most common, human-caused sources of bird mortality. The numbers in [2] are admittedly pretty startling. But it looks like they come from one report labeled "2013a". Any info on where to find it, or what it even is? Otherwise it's easy to call [2] a citation when in fact no evidence whatsoever is being presente. [4] is much better. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 But cats are still only a contributory factor, not the main cause; the report says they're the second leading cause of admissions, not the first. So, high, and worth thinking about. But again, the cost here is "removing, by force, someone's beloved pet." I'm not above saying that we should probably care about cats more than birds, because of the emotional bonds they form with humans. After all, that's why we're fine with flies being killed, right? No emotional bonds.

john_strinlai 6mo ago
>The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat. the implication is that if you want a cat, you should be responsible and keep it indoors. >But again, the cost here is "removing, by force, someone's beloved pet." no, the cost is keeping your cat indoors.
- sillysaurusx 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - john_strinlai 6mo ago
    >If you're not going to bother putting in any effort into the debate, please don't participate at all. you are "debating" against a fictional argument. no one is saying that it is okay to steal or "remove by force" someones pet. they presented you with several citations about how damaging house cats are (and there are several more, you can start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife) and you said... "nu uh". >I'm looking after for my cat's wellbeing, not some bird's wildly selfish statement.
    - sillysaurusx 6mo ago
      Once again: You kill flies. Sometimes dozens of them. Your conscience is clear. That's wildly selfish of you, yet you don't seem to care about the flies. Why not? They're just as much a part of the ecosystem as the birds. Also, this entire discussion is off-topic. The point was for vets to verify microchips, something directly related to the article.
      - john_strinlai 6mo ago
        you literally just quoted something about "respond to the central argument" to me. instead of following your own advice, you are closing your eyes, saying "off-topic" and yelling "what about!". all the while, ignoring the entire argument being put forth (alongside the dozens of citations that back the argument up). i feel bad for your neighbors.