Domestic cats and wildlife...

nickyboy zz

Ballysmate wrote:

Some cats kill some birds. Sad but there it is.
Some people get upset by this. but there it is.
People have said that cats are not indigenous to UK. I think there were cats of some description living wild in this country long before man decided to domesticate them for pest control. The vast majority of today's cats though are kept as pets and not primarily for pest control.
If people are going to use the argument that you can only keep indigenous animals, I think it would be cool to have domesticated pine martens.
People feed birds in their gardens, helping to artificially inflate the populations. But this is ok because they are cute little dickie birds. They seem to be given preferential treatment to other types of vermin such as mice, rats and squirrels. Yes, vermin. Some birds are regarded as vermin by gardeners and people who have to clean up bird droppings.
As I said, birds seem to be set apart because of their cuteness, but even within the bird world, some birds are more equal than others. Think blue tit v magpie for example.
Why are people so shocked that because they create better breeding conditions for songbirds, a predator takes advantage. Not just cats, but the likes of magpies, whose population has benefited from all those fresh eggs and new born chicks.

I take your point regarding cuteness and you're right that a lot of people regard some birds as "better" than others.

I think the fundamental problem regarding cats is the population density. They exist, in urban areas, at far higher densities than could naturally be sustained and as such put prey species under more pressure than is necessary.

Also, I think it is possible for a cat owner to reduce the cat's hunting effectiveness by adding a bell or whatever. I don't understand why owners don't do that. I presume that cat owners don't particularly want their cat to kill birds so I don't understand why they wouldn't fit a bell. They are cheap so it can't be cost

graeme_s-2

nickyboy zz wrote:

Also, I think it is possible for a cat owner to reduce the cat's hunting effectiveness by adding a bell or whatever. I don't understand why owners don't do that. I presume that cat owners don't particularly want their cat to kill birds so I don't understand why they wouldn't fit a bell. They are cheap so it can't be cost

Lots of cats do have bells. It's also worth noting that not all cats actively hunt. Our cat is a soppy dimwit. She's 8, and and the entire time we've had her she's caught 2 small frogs (one of which was released, the other was found desiccated under the fridge when we moved house) and a few moths and worms. That's it. She's never caught a mammal or a bird.

She's had a bell in the past, but she doesn't particularly like wearing a collar, so we've given up on that now. She is microchipped and spayed as is rightly required for any cat that comes from the cat's protection league.

If she did ever start bringing in prey then we would put a collar with a bell on her again. I think you overestimate their effectiveness though. Cats who are real hunters will adapt to a bell and still move virtual silently when stalking their prey. Perhaps in those cases one of these is the solution?

goonz

What? Get a cow as a pet?

My cat is an indoor only so only really kills flies and spiders etc, I do sometimes watch her hunt and its astonishing how similar they are to their larger cousins. She totally switches into another mode and the way her eyes turn saucer like in seconds is awesome!

Putting a collar on her would probably just make her adapt slightly when hunting but I reckon most people dont put it on because of the noise it would make especially in the night, I am already a light sleeper I dont want to be woken every few hours by the cat too!

simonhead

I am looking forward to the day when my 2 cats can go outside. They are only 8 months old and a delight most of the time but their new favourite trick is to climb up you to have a cuddle or if they want feeding. This is fine in jeans but when you are wearing bibs its not so enjoyable.

graeme_s-2

goonz wrote:

What? Get a cow as a pet? !

You train it to follow the cat around - no danger of it sneaking up on anything then!

Wunnunda

Cats eat birds. I don't like it cos I like birds but, cats will be cats.

However....
Cats also use my garden as a toilet - pi55ing and sh1tt1ing and marking their stinking territories over and over and over again. I don't like this either, and this I DON'T think I should live with. Our local dog owners also have 'escapes' every now and then. They come and find their animals, clean up after them if required and are generally very apologetic. Cat owners ? Like their pets, they don't give a flying one. I do not understand this double standard.

What we need is a new breed of Hawk - a Cat Hawk. Eyesight of an Owl, Speed of Sparrow Hawk, Size of a Buzzard. Natural control at it's best.

goonz

Woah woah woah, cats at least cover their sh.it. Dogs just dump one and off they go. Even with their owners so many dogs whilst out on the lead just drop one and the owner does not even bother to pick it up.

SpainSte

Mikey23 wrote:

So we've been doing our springwatch thing and have had a delightful family of young blackbirds nesting in our garden. So there's daddy blackbird down on the lawn by the hedge with baby blackbird doing the parenting and feeding thing when a cat from next door takes the baby out. The poor mite makes its escape but it so badly injured that all it can do is slowly bleed to death on my patio chair ... So I had to put it down as humanely as possible.

So why do people keep domestic cats and do they know or care what savage killing machines they are when the little darlings are out of sight?

This is the problem with this entire thread.

Birds, of any type, are not "delightful", they are not "Daddy blackbirds", they do not "do the parenting thing" and they are not "poor mites". They are wild animals, they are not there for your enjoyment, although enjoyment is something which can be gained from them, enjoyment is not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose and role in the ecosystem is to maintain the food chain and raise their young to continue their species. You are quite wrong to humanise wild animals in such a way.

Some cats kill things. Some don't. Some cats eat what they catch, some don't.

You want to study wild animals and presumably teach yourself or your family about wild animals, however intend to do so without looking at one of the primary mechanisms of the animal world - that of prey and predator. To do so is to misunderstand the animal kingdom and misrepresent what life is about for wild animals, who for most of their lives are engaged in a constant battle against predators and hunger. Animals getting killed and either eaten or discarded is not new or unique. Killer Whales often track and kill Grey Whale calves, for nothing other than sport - they might eat the lower jaw of the dead whale (is a favourite of theirs apparently), but the rest rots and goes to waste. What do you plan to do? Put a bell round the necks of Killer Whales, or maybe remove the teeth of the viscious blighters.... This kind of behaviour is replicated throughout the animal world, Bears often kill way more Salmon than they can eat, letting them go to waste along with the Spawn they carry - another example.

Nature is a beautiful place, but it is also hard, uncompromising and amazingly dangerous - people such as yourself would do well to remember that, and keep these things in context without resorting to the child-like "Daddy Blackbird" nonsense.

SpainSte

Wunnunda wrote:

Cats eat birds. I don't like it cos I like birds but, cats will be cats.

However....
Cats also use my garden as a toilet - pi55ing and sh1tt1ing and marking their stinking territories over and over and over again. I don't like this either, and this I DON'T think I should live with. Our local dog owners also have 'escapes' every now and then. They come and find their animals, clean up after them if required and are generally very apologetic. Cat owners ? Like their pets, they don't give a flying one. I do not understand this double standard.

What we need is a new breed of Hawk - a Cat Hawk. Eyesight of an Owl, Speed of Sparrow Hawk, Size of a Buzzard. Natural control at it's best.

Or you could just buy the stuff from the garden centre that stops them doing their business in your garden.....

desweller

Domestic cats are not wild animals. The clue is in the word 'domestic'. It's natural for them to do all kinds of things, but as they are notionally domesticated and therefore someone's responsibility, those natural inclinations should be controlled by their owners IMO.

SpainSte

DesWeller wrote:

Domestic cats are not wild animals. The clue is in the word 'domestic'. It's natural for them to do all kinds of things, but as they are notionally domesticated and therefore someone's responsibility, those natural inclinations should be controlled by their owners IMO.

Who said that cats are wild animals?

And how should owners control the cats natural instincts?

goonz

SpainSte wrote:

Wunnunda wrote:

Cats eat birds. I don't like it cos I like birds but, cats will be cats.

However....
Cats also use my garden as a toilet - pi55ing and sh1tt1ing and marking their stinking territories over and over and over again. I don't like this either, and this I DON'T think I should live with. Our local dog owners also have 'escapes' every now and then. They come and find their animals, clean up after them if required and are generally very apologetic. Cat owners ? Like their pets, they don't give a flying one. I do not understand this double standard.

What we need is a new breed of Hawk - a Cat Hawk. Eyesight of an Owl, Speed of Sparrow Hawk, Size of a Buzzard. Natural control at it's best.

Or you could just buy the stuff from the garden centre that stops them doing their business in your garden.....

whats that then? Need something to stop the blighter using all my pot plants as a damn toilet!

nickyboy zz

SpainSte wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

So we've been doing our springwatch thing and have had a delightful family of young blackbirds nesting in our garden. So there's daddy blackbird down on the lawn by the hedge with baby blackbird doing the parenting and feeding thing when a cat from next door takes the baby out. The poor mite makes its escape but it so badly injured that all it can do is slowly bleed to death on my patio chair ... So I had to put it down as humanely as possible.

So why do people keep domestic cats and do they know or care what savage killing machines they are when the little darlings are out of sight?

This is the problem with this entire thread.

Birds, of any type, are not "delightful", they are not "Daddy blackbirds", they do not "do the parenting thing" and they are not "poor mites". They are wild animals, they are not there for your enjoyment, although enjoyment is something which can be gained from them, enjoyment is not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose and role in the ecosystem is to maintain the food chain and raise their young to continue their species. You are quite wrong to humanise wild animals in such a way.

Some cats kill things. Some don't. Some cats eat what they catch, some don't.

You want to study wild animals and presumably teach yourself or your family about wild animals, however intend to do so without looking at one of the primary mechanisms of the animal world - that of prey and predator. To do so is to misunderstand the animal kingdom and misrepresent what life is about for wild animals, who for most of their lives are engaged in a constant battle against predators and hunger. Animals getting killed and either eaten or discarded is not new or unique. Killer Whales often track and kill Grey Whale calves, for nothing other than sport - they might eat the lower jaw of the dead whale (is a favourite of theirs apparently), but the rest rots and goes to waste. What do you plan to do? Put a bell round the necks of Killer Whales, or maybe remove the teeth of the viscious blighters.... This kind of behaviour is replicated throughout the animal world, Bears often kill way more Salmon than they can eat, letting them go to waste along with the Spawn they carry - another example.

Nature is a beautiful place, but it is also hard, uncompromising and amazingly dangerous - people such as yourself would do well to remember that, and keep these things in context without resorting to the child-like "Daddy Blackbird" nonsense.

Quite right that we mustn't anthropomorphise animals. But I think the weakness in your argument is that cats are not reliant on what they kill to survive and are present at a much greater density that would naturally occur.

Wild animals are always under pressure to survive either by avoiding predators or finding enough food and that's how it should be (otherwise we would all be knee deep in blue tits by now). But cat populations are far out of balance with prey populations in urban areas so I think owners have some responsibility to ensure that their cats' killings are minimised.

Get a bell for your cat. It won't stop the cat hunting but it will make it less effective. No reason not to

SpainSte

goonz wrote:

SpainSte wrote:

Wunnunda wrote:

Cats eat birds. I don't like it cos I like birds but, cats will be cats.

However....
Cats also use my garden as a toilet - pi55ing and sh1tt1ing and marking their stinking territories over and over and over again. I don't like this either, and this I DON'T think I should live with. Our local dog owners also have 'escapes' every now and then. They come and find their animals, clean up after them if required and are generally very apologetic. Cat owners ? Like their pets, they don't give a flying one. I do not understand this double standard.

What we need is a new breed of Hawk - a Cat Hawk. Eyesight of an Owl, Speed of Sparrow Hawk, Size of a Buzzard. Natural control at it's best.

Or you could just buy the stuff from the garden centre that stops them doing their business in your garden.....

whats that then? Need something to stop the blighter using all my pot plants as a damn toilet!

I got some stuff from Morrisons, not 100% what is called. In a big white tub with a green lid, sorry I can't be more help. I have a couple of cats near me that liked to use my garden as a toilet, put this stuff down for a couple of weeks, never had any problem again that was two years ago.

Giraffoto

When is someone going to bring up the most relevant point -

Cats are bl00dy freeloaders!

Sorry, that wasn't particularly relevant. True though. To correct a couple of other points . . .

The common house moggy is not a domesticated version of the Scottish wild cat. It's a domesticated version of the African wild cat. No, not that African wild cat, a much smaller one.

The difference between pets and wildlife is that the pets are there as a result of a human decision. So their effect on the environment are morally equivalent to say, letting toxic waste leak into a river. Humans created it, and it's their failure to control their creation that has brought the situation about.

Cats are total bl00dy freeloaders! Sorry there I go again.

SpainSte

nickyboy zz wrote:

SpainSte wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

So we've been doing our springwatch thing and have had a delightful family of young blackbirds nesting in our garden. So there's daddy blackbird down on the lawn by the hedge with baby blackbird doing the parenting and feeding thing when a cat from next door takes the baby out. The poor mite makes its escape but it so badly injured that all it can do is slowly bleed to death on my patio chair ... So I had to put it down as humanely as possible.

So why do people keep domestic cats and do they know or care what savage killing machines they are when the little darlings are out of sight?

This is the problem with this entire thread.

Birds, of any type, are not "delightful", they are not "Daddy blackbirds", they do not "do the parenting thing" and they are not "poor mites". They are wild animals, they are not there for your enjoyment, although enjoyment is something which can be gained from them, enjoyment is not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose and role in the ecosystem is to maintain the food chain and raise their young to continue their species. You are quite wrong to humanise wild animals in such a way.

Some cats kill things. Some don't. Some cats eat what they catch, some don't.

You want to study wild animals and presumably teach yourself or your family about wild animals, however intend to do so without looking at one of the primary mechanisms of the animal world - that of prey and predator. To do so is to misunderstand the animal kingdom and misrepresent what life is about for wild animals, who for most of their lives are engaged in a constant battle against predators and hunger. Animals getting killed and either eaten or discarded is not new or unique. Killer Whales often track and kill Grey Whale calves, for nothing other than sport - they might eat the lower jaw of the dead whale (is a favourite of theirs apparently), but the rest rots and goes to waste. What do you plan to do? Put a bell round the necks of Killer Whales, or maybe remove the teeth of the viscious blighters.... This kind of behaviour is replicated throughout the animal world, Bears often kill way more Salmon than they can eat, letting them go to waste along with the Spawn they carry - another example.

Nature is a beautiful place, but it is also hard, uncompromising and amazingly dangerous - people such as yourself would do well to remember that, and keep these things in context without resorting to the child-like "Daddy Blackbird" nonsense.

Quite right that we mustn't anthropomorphise animals. But I think the weakness in your argument is that cats are not reliant on what they kill to survive and are present at a much greater density that would naturally occur.

I dont see how your points point out any weakness in the argument I have put forward. In both of my examples, Killer Whales and Bears, both animals reach the point where they are sated and yet continue to hunt and kill even though the prey they kill is not intended for food and the animals they kill are left to rot and are not eaten. Therefore cats are not unique and this is not a special case.

Wild animals are always under pressure to survive either by avoiding predators or finding enough food and that's how it should be (otherwise we would all be knee deep in blue tits by now). But cat populations are far out of balance with prey populations in urban areas so I think owners have some responsibility to ensure that their cats' killings are minimised.

Thats a nice statement without any proof to back it up. Who says that cats are over populated? You? This may only be true in the case that all cats actively hunt - some do, some don't. There may be 10 cats living in the area of say, two post codes, but only 2 may be active hunters. Does 2 active hunters in a area that covers around 100 properties (so a reasonable size in area) mean that it is over populated with predators of that size? I dont think it does.

Get a bell for your cat. It won't stop the cat hunting but it will make it less effective. No reason not to

Except for the large numbers of cats that get their collars caught in hedges and bushes, become trapped, and die, no reason at all.

natrix

goonz wrote:

Even with their owners so many dogs whilst out on the lead just drop one and the owner does not even bother to pick it up.

Disagree. Most dog owners bag up their dogs mess (and then hang it up in a tree as decoration).


PS Interesting programme on cats on the tv tonight at 9pm - see exactly what they get up to

bompington

SpainSte wrote:

Birds... are wild animals, they are not there for your enjoyment

Very true. In fact a lot of species of birds, and other animals, are not there at all any more, thanks entirely to predation by feral domestic cats, as I pointed out (clearly with no impact whatsoever) a couple of pages back, with a link to research showing that 13% of all modern-era extinctions - total, eradicated, gone for ever extinctions - are due to feral cats.
Giraffoto is right when he points out that

Giraffoto wrote:

The difference between pets and wildlife is that the pets are there as a result of a human decision. So their effect on the environment are morally equivalent to say, letting toxic waste leak into a river. Humans created it, and it's their failure to control their creation that has brought the situation about

It is obvious beyond all description that mankind has a vast impact on the ecosystem, and we can't pretend we don't or undo most of what has been done - we can only hope to reach some sort of equilibrium with the rest of nature.

But I don't think that blithely unleashing a devastating predator on wildlife around the world is a very good way to do that.


PS yes of course there are way too many horrendously ignorant dog owners out there, and I really, really can't work out what on earth the phantom poo-baggers are thinking, but their behaviour has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not cats are a plague on wildlife.

Wunnunda

Cats cover their sh1t? Well I grant they make the effort. And sometimes they even make the effort while managing not to put soil and compost on the path/lawn.

Get stuff from somewhere to spray/spread on the garden? Apart from the fact that most of it disappears with the first half decent rainfall, I have to spend my money on chemical weapons to pollute my garden so someone else can have an indulgence they can't be bothered to manage? Great.

My really point is not the cat but the fact that people that own them are at worst wilfully negligent and, at best selfishly indifferent to the impact their little darling(s) has/have on others.

simonhead

Surely its just natural selection which promotes diversity and evolution. Graeme_s's cows have probably contributed more to the decimation of natural flora and fauna through deforestation than my cats Oscar and Delilah are ever likely to.

graeme_s-2

simonhead wrote:

Surely its just natural selection which promotes diversity and evolution. Graeme_s's cows have probably contributed more to the decimation of natural flora and fauna through deforestation than my cats Oscar and Delilah are ever likely to.

It's also worth pointing out the amount of wildlife that is killed on roads by cars every year, but I've never seen it put forwards as a reason to ban cars.

natrix

This thread seems to be going the same way as the singletrack forum thread on cats which degenerated into threats of armed violence :roll: :roll:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic ... den/page/3

Keyboard warriors eh, don't you just love 'em http://keyboardwarriorsexposed.blogspot.co.uk/

simonhead

Graeme_S wrote:

simonhead wrote:

Surely its just natural selection which promotes diversity and evolution. Graeme_s's cows have probably contributed more to the decimation of natural flora and fauna through deforestation than my cats Oscar and Delilah are ever likely to.

It's also worth pointing out the amount of wildlife that is killed on roads by cars every year, but I've never seen it put forwards as a reason to ban cars.

Absolutely, near where my sister lives in Norfolk there is a road affectionately nicknamed roadkill road, theres always half a dozen hairy burgers lying in the carriageway.

SpainSte

Wunnunda wrote:

Cats cover their sh1t? Well I grant they make the effort. And sometimes they even make the effort while managing not to put soil and compost on the path/lawn.

Get stuff from somewhere to spray/spread on the garden? Apart from the fact that most of it disappears with the first half decent rainfall, I have to spend my money on chemical weapons to pollute my garden so someone else can have an indulgence they can't be bothered to manage? Great.

My really point is not the cat but the fact that people that own them are at worst wilfully negligent and, at best selfishly indifferent to the impact their little darling(s) has/have on others.

This stuff is herbal, non chemical and the rain helps to ingrain it in the soil and so prevent the need to re add it so regularly. Its all very modern these days you know, you should look it up.

How do you define " wilfully negligent"? What are you expectations of cat owners? Should cats be followed so that their droppings can be collected by the owner? Presumably then you wouldn't have a problem with someone going into your garden, either whilst your there or not, in order to clean the mess and therefore complete what you believe to be their duty?

nickyboy zz

Wild animals are always under pressure to survive either by avoiding predators or finding enough food and that's how it should be (otherwise we would all be knee deep in blue tits by now). But cat populations are far out of balance with prey populations in urban areas so I think owners have some responsibility to ensure that their cats' killings are minimised.

Thats a nice statement without any proof to back it up. Who says that cats are over populated? You? This may only be true in the case that all cats actively hunt - some do, some don't. There may be 10 cats living in the area of say, two post codes, but only 2 may be active hunters. Does 2 active hunters in a area that covers around 100 properties (so a reasonable size in area) mean that it is over populated with predators of that size? I dont think it does.

Get a bell for your cat. It won't stop the cat hunting but it will make it less effective. No reason not to

Except for the large numbers of cats that get their collars caught in hedges and bushes, become trapped, and die, no reason at all.[/quote]

I will do my best to find the reference. My understanding was that pet cats are present at a density approximately 7x that which would naturally be the case. I take your point that pet cats may or may not be "hunters". However, in the spirit of you asking me for proof of my statements please provide references to the following:

1) Large numbers of cats getting their collars caught

2) Proportions of cats which actively hunt

Wunnunda

SpainSte wrote:

Wunnunda wrote:

Cats cover their sh1t? Well I grant they make the effort. And sometimes they even make the effort while managing not to put soil and compost on the path/lawn.

Get stuff from somewhere to spray/spread on the garden? Apart from the fact that most of it disappears with the first half decent rainfall, I have to spend my money on chemical weapons to pollute my garden so someone else can have an indulgence they can't be bothered to manage? Great.

My really point is not the cat but the fact that people that own them are at worst wilfully negligent and, at best selfishly indifferent to the impact their little darling(s) has/have on others.

This stuff is herbal, non chemical and the rain helps to ingrain it in the soil and so prevent the need to re add it so regularly. Its all very modern these days you know, you should look it up.

How do you define " wilfully negligent"? What are you expectations of cat owners? Should cats be followed so that their droppings can be collected by the owner? Presumably then you wouldn't have a problem with someone going into your garden, either whilst your there or not, in order to clean the mess and therefore complete what you believe to be their duty?

The owners should keep their toy in it's box (and that is all they are - a toy) and not let make my life inconvenient. What genocidal acts the animal-loving owners chose to let Tibbles get up to their own back yard is between them and their conscience.
No-one has a right to let their pet roam free like that. Simple. We've made that step for dogs, just need to do the same for cats.

Oh - and -edit- herbal, non chemical (though presumably bio-chemical?) and modern...great, sounds wonderful....is it free?

nickyboy zz

SpainSite

Here are references to cat population density in Reading (should be reasonably typical) of 16/km2 and to natural historical predator density (wildcats) of between 0.1 and 1.4/km2

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0049369

http://www.tau.ac.il/lifesci/zoology/me ... l/cats.pdf

So having provided you with scientific evidence to support my assertion, please provide same to support yours ie.

1) Not all cats are hunters

2) Lots of cats die due to their collars

I'm waiting..............

Mikey23

@spainste... Thanks for the extremely condescending put down mate... For your information I do have a brain, i know how to use it and my language was more than a little tongue in cheek. I agree with you to a point and would state that progs like springwatch can give ickle biddy fluffy creatures a personality and celebrity status that they just don't deserve and it's easy to get emotionally drawn into the tooth and claw of nature.

natrix

Wunnunda wrote:

The owners should keep their toy in it's box (and that is all they are - a toy) and not let make my life inconvenient.

Just what car owners would say about cyclists complete with the poor grammar!!

Giraffoto

SpainSte wrote:

How do you define " wilfully negligent"? What are you expectations of cat owners? Should cats be followed so that their droppings can be collected by the owner? Presumably then you wouldn't have a problem with someone going into your garden, either whilst your there or not, in order to clean the mess and therefore complete what you believe to be their duty?

1. Leave precise definitions to the lawmakers, but "knowing that something will happen unless you act, and choosing not to act" is what we're talking about here, and probably fits the definition. Something being their cat cr@pping on someone else's property

2., 3. and 4. Yep, make it the owner's responsibility to make sure they don't trespass. So the owner doesn't have to follow them or clean up after them.

If you have chosen (no one forced you to get a cat/dog/monkey etc.) to get a pet, there should be some presumption of responsibility to stop it causing damage, trespassing, annoying other people or damaging wildlife. It should not be up to other people to accommodate your whims.

natrix wrote:

Just what car owners would say about cyclists

Do you not take responsibility for what happens when you're on your bike? Do you just ride where you like and expect everyone else to put up with you? Or do you follow the rules that exist to protect not just you, but non-cyclists?

We choose to ride bikes. I don't expect special treatment for it (lucky, that ), don't trespass, take care not to cause damage when I'm riding. When we make a choice, we assume responsibility for its consequences.