The Pet Thread

laurentian

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

kingstongraham

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die. Sorry.

DeVlaeminck

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die. Sorry.

Linking perfectly back to the Covid thread

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die. Sorry.

Linking perfectly back to the Covid thread

If you think that people and animals are the same, sure.

shirley_basso

Domestic cats killing small mammals is a good thing. Killing birds though, not so much

laurentian

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die although not necessarily before maturity and breeding age. Sorry.

FTFY

rjsterry

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

They're exclusive carnivores. Some animal has to die to feed them. Dogs have a more varied diet, but they are still carnivores. There isn't a way for carnivores to live without other animals dying. I think the idea that there is some fundamental difference between 'natural' predation and predation by pets is mistaken. Sure, cats have an unpleasant (to us) habit of killing something and then seemingly losing interest, but I suspect that is not unique to pets. Otherwise, the numerous animals that have evolved to live off carrion would not exist.

kingstongraham

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die although not necessarily before maturity and breeding age. Sorry.

FTFY

If the extra words you have for some reason put into my quote (rather than just using your own words) were right, then there would be an exponential growth in the population, or more realistically, it would find its balance again within the available habitat. Probably mean more bloody magpies killing small birds, or a harder life for hawks, crows etc.

First.Aspect

shirley_basso said:

Domestic cats killing small mammals is a good thing. Killing birds though, not so much

That's completely arbitrary though isn't it.

laurentian

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die although not necessarily before maturity and breeding age. Sorry.

FTFY

or more realistically, it would find its balance again within the available habitat. Probably mean more bloody magpies killing small birds, or a harder life for hawks, crows etc.

Exactly . . . pretty much sums up what I think should be the case and, as you say, would benefit the predator species within that available habitat. As far as I know, octopusses (octopi?) find their balance within their available habitat - we are not overrun with exponential octopi, or gnus or wallabies and to suggest we would be overun with exponential birds in the absence of cats is quite a leap . . .

First.Aspect

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die although not necessarily before maturity and breeding age. Sorry.

FTFY

or more realistically, it would find its balance again within the available habitat. Probably mean more bloody magpies killing small birds, or a harder life for hawks, crows etc.

Exactly . . . pretty much sums up what I think should be the case and, as you say, would benefit the predator species within that available habitat. As far as I know, octopusses (octopi?) find their balance within their available habitat - we are not overrun with exponential octopi, or gnus or wallabies and to suggest we would be overun with exponential birds in the absence of cats is quite a leap . . .

I think the focus on felines is probably misplaced though. Rather larger issues are endangering birds. Us, for example. Agriculture, for example. Habitat loss. Habitat fragmentation. Etc. Pretty sure that Garfield comes quite a long way down the list.

kingstongraham

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die although not necessarily before maturity and breeding age. Sorry.

FTFY

or more realistically, it would find its balance again within the available habitat. Probably mean more bloody magpies killing small birds, or a harder life for hawks, crows etc.

Exactly . . . pretty much sums up what I think should be the case and, as you say, would benefit the predator species within that available habitat. As far as I know, octopusses (octopi?) find their balance within their available habitat - we are not overrun with exponential octopi, or gnus or wallabies and to suggest we would be overun with exponential birds in the absence of cats is quite a leap . . .

Exactly my point. It's not exactly a natural habitat untouched by humans that they live in currently. If you come to accept that cats are just part of that environmental balance now, you'll be more relaxed about it. If there aren't going to be more birds with or without cats, why such an problem with cats doing what they do?

rjsterry

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die although not necessarily before maturity and breeding age. Sorry.

FTFY

or more realistically, it would find its balance again within the available habitat. Probably mean more bloody magpies killing small birds, or a harder life for hawks, crows etc.

Exactly . . . pretty much sums up what I think should be the case and, as you say, would benefit the predator species within that available habitat. As far as I know, octopusses (octopi?) find their balance within their available habitat - we are not overrun with exponential octopi, or gnus or wallabies and to suggest we would be overun with exponential birds in the absence of cats is quite a leap . . .

It isn't that much of a leap: we removed the predators of deer and now they have to be culled to prevent overgrazing. Ditto rabbits in Australia. But there is a misunderstanding: animals do not 'find their balance'. It is just an arms race of genes. While we can and do f*** up ecosystems. Species have been going extinct far, far longer than Homo sapiens or Homo anything has existed.

laurentian

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die although not necessarily before maturity and breeding age. Sorry.

FTFY

or more realistically, it would find its balance again within the available habitat. Probably mean more bloody magpies killing small birds, or a harder life for hawks, crows etc.

Exactly . . . pretty much sums up what I think should be the case and, as you say, would benefit the predator species within that available habitat. As far as I know, octopusses (octopi?) find their balance within their available habitat - we are not overrun with exponential octopi, or gnus or wallabies and to suggest we would be overun with exponential birds in the absence of cats is quite a leap . . .

Exactly my point. It's not exactly a natural habitat untouched by humans that they live in currently. If you come to accept that cats are just part of that environmental balance now, you'll be more relaxed about it. If there aren't going to be more birds with or without cats, why such an problem with cats doing what they do?

Sure, I suppose from some angles, cats could be seen as part of the environmental balance now but it is an artificially balanced environment insofar as they (i.e. pet cats) are sustained by their owners (ie fed, watered and housed) and still predate from a position of vigour that they would not normally enjoy in the environment. There would be more birds without cats. Even the conservative figures posted up thread put deaths in the millions. How many millions is a moot point.

I think I could sum my thoughts up by saying that I don't have a problem with cats doing what they do.

Cats are cats and act on their natural instincts which includes the predation of indigenous birds and mammals.

So would dogs if they had the same "rights" as cats.

We have controls on dogs to ensure that they don't follow their natural instincts (including biting folk!). My overall point is that I think that there is a case to say that cats should be subject to the same controls as dogs. My issue is more with cat ownership and the responsibilities, or lack of them, that cat owners seem to exercise rather than with the cat doing its thing.

It basically seems to me that a person buys a cat, feeds it and everything else is left up to the cat to decide with impunity for either cat or owner. No obligation for it to be kept under control, no obligation to curb its natural instincts, no responsibility to the environment in which it finds itself.

There is up to a thousand pound fine in my area if your dog sh1ts in the street without it being cleared up and owners are required by law to carry bags to collect their dog's waste - I believe one can be fined for walking a dog without having a poo bag.

How can it be justified that a cat can defacate whereever it wants with impunity within the same juristiction? Dog chases sheep - dog can be destroyed. Dog follows its natural instinct to course a hare, dog and owner in the sh1t. Cat kills birds, voles, lizards then sh!ts in the garden where children play and that's somehow held in a different light.

It makes no sense to me and I'll leave it there. I've enjoyed the debate and appreciate that my views put me in the minority.

pangolin

Sorry the 'millions' is not moot, most people have basically said we have no idea what the number is, and we have no idea what number it is out of.

? / ? p.a. is not a compelling bit of data.

First.Aspect

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

laurentian said:

kingstongraham said:

What do you mean by "their population lies in the balance"?

If there's no population decline, then "in balance" means that there are as many born as die which, if there's plenty of them, is pretty much what you'd want, isn't it? It doesn't mean that their survival as a species hangs in the balance.

I don't much like cats, but they're just part of the environment as we've made it now. They'll kill stuff.

. . . I'd rather they didn't and that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

If the cats didn't kill them, they'd still die although not necessarily before maturity and breeding age. Sorry.

FTFY

or more realistically, it would find its balance again within the available habitat. Probably mean more bloody magpies killing small birds, or a harder life for hawks, crows etc.

Exactly . . . pretty much sums up what I think should be the case and, as you say, would benefit the predator species within that available habitat. As far as I know, octopusses (octopi?) find their balance within their available habitat - we are not overrun with exponential octopi, or gnus or wallabies and to suggest we would be overun with exponential birds in the absence of cats is quite a leap . . .

Exactly my point. It's not exactly a natural habitat untouched by humans that they live in currently. If you come to accept that cats are just part of that environmental balance now, you'll be more relaxed about it. If there aren't going to be more birds with or without cats, why such an problem with cats doing what they do?

Sure, I suppose from some angles, cats could be seen as part of the environmental balance now but it is an artificially balanced environment insofar as they (i.e. pet cats) are sustained by their owners (ie fed, watered and housed) and still predate from a position of vigour that they would not normally enjoy in the environment. There would be more birds without cats. Even the conservative figures posted up thread put deaths in the millions. How many millions is a moot point.

I think I could sum my thoughts up by saying that I don't have a problem with cats doing what they do.

Cats are cats and act on their natural instincts which includes the predation of indigenous birds and mammals.

So would dogs if they had the same "rights" as cats.

We have controls on dogs to ensure that they don't follow their natural instincts (including biting folk!). My overall point is that I think that there is a case to say that cats should be subject to the same controls as dogs. My issue is more with cat ownership and the responsibilities, or lack of them, that cat owners seem to exercise rather than with the cat doing its thing.

It basically seems to me that a person buys a cat, feeds it and everything else is left up to the cat to decide with impunity for either cat or owner. No obligation for it to be kept under control, no obligation to curb its natural instincts, no responsibility to the environment in which it finds itself.

There is up to a thousand pound fine in my area if your dog sh1ts in the street without it being cleared up and owners are required by law to carry bags to collect their dog's waste - I believe one can be fined for walking a dog without having a poo bag.

How can it be justified that a cat can defacate whereever it wants with impunity within the same juristiction? Dog chases sheep - dog can be destroyed. Dog follows its natural instinct to course a hare, dog and owner in the censored . Cat kills birds, voles, lizards then sh!ts in the garden where children play and that's somehow held in a different light.

It makes no sense to me and I'll leave it there. I've enjoyed the debate and appreciate that my views put me in the minority.

It's because they don't stand up to scrutiny.

You are working back from a dislike of cats, because your arguments would essentially preclude cat ownership, other than indoor cats - a cruel concept in my view.

But you are entitled to your opinion, I suppose.

And that's where I'll leave it, flounce.

john80

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

pangolin said:

laurentian said:

Again "most" doesn't equal "all" and I for one care. The human race is pretty adept at killing its own kind with no affect on overall population, it doesn't make that right.

As far as what the "article is saying" it says "They estimate that cats in the UK catch up to 100 million prey items over spring and summer, of which 27 million are birds." Whatever it goes on to say about the relative health or life expectancy of those doesn't change this.

Of course the relative health of those animals changes it. It's the difference between a perfectly healthy animal being struck down in the prime of its life by a cat, or a dying mouse just being found by one.

Are you cool with mice being killed by other predators, or dying of hunger, or being shredded by a combine? Is it all animal death that offends or is it just because cats have been introduced by humans?

It doesn't change the 100 million figure although I fully understand the point you are making. However, I would argue (again) that "most" does not mean "all" and so, by definition, the rest that are left after "most" are killed are not dying, ill or otherwise destined to shuffle off this mortal coil so soon.

I am absolutely cool with mice being killed by other predators - I find it endlessly fascinating and a joy to behold if the predators in question are indigenous predator species.

I love to watch sparrowhawks, kestrels, herons, hen harriers, pine martens etc. doing their thing. That's the food chain, that's nature. Domestic cats are not an indigenous species or part of the natural food chain in the UK - that's what I'm not cool with. I would also argue that the dead and dying birds and mammals hoovered up by cats would be at least partly beneficial to the indigenous predator species as a food source that they are being denied by the habits of cats . . . stands to reason no?

Cats act as a bit of a lightning rod for peoples ire because what they do tends to happen in our own back gardens so we see it. But you're kidding yourself if you think removing them would get us a fraction of a % towards restoring a "natural food chain" in the UK.

This is a good point and I agree - it would be a very marginal gain.

Genuine question here: Would you be happy if dogs had the same "right to roam" as cats?

Hmm no I would not. We did used to have a dog that regularly came into our garden, and when I finally identified the owner and told them they seemed completely unconcerned. It didn't do anything so it didn't really matter, but I might have felt differently if I'd had young kids then.

However scale that up across the country and there are too many dogs that would end up biting people (and they're big enough to damage property if that way inclined). Also cat poo is annoying but not as bad as dog poo.

And lots wouldn't go home. Quite a different animal, so to speak.

Thanks - your point on them biting people is a good one and I suppose one of the reasons that the laws are what they are. Personally I would be in favour of cats being under the same restrictions as dogs insofar as they shouldn't be allowed to roam wherever and when ever they want, owners should be obliged to pick up faeces etc. but that's probably a stretch for most cat owners.

No probs with this being brought in after you show us you can train your cat or never allow a faeces to be left by them. 10k fine per episode should see you bankrupt in no time and your plan scrapped. I have never seen a cat defecate on a pavement outside a school mind.

pinno

Well dogs carry Toxocariasis and Capnocytophaga Canimorsus - which is why you should never let a dog lick your face.
Cats tend to bury their faeces.

My organisation had 32 bring banks across the region. It was commonplace for dog owners to put their dog poo bags in them. I managed to get the local community wardens to keep an eye out and only when 2 individuals were fined did the practice virtually stop.

joe2019

King of the jungle.

pinno

First.Aspect

pinno

Nice markings that cat of yours FA.

Go on - I dare you: rub that belly.

webboo

rjsterry

joe2019

webboo said:

Why don't they fall off?

rjsterry

webboo said:

Now that is clever.

First.Aspect

pinno said:

Nice markings that cat of yours FA.

Go on - I dare you: rub that belly.

Top one = danger, if tickled, otherwise fine. Bottom one, no risk at all, unless there is catnip around in which case you need a falconry gauntlet.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

pinno said:

Nice markings that cat of yours FA.

Go on - I dare you: rub that belly.

Top one = danger, if tickled, otherwise fine. Bottom one, no risk at all, unless there is catnip around in which case you need a falconry gauntlet.

One of ours - the big grey thing - loses his mind on catmint. But the other couldn't care less. Also intriguing how the effects wear off very abruptly.

webboo

I wonder if this one is upside down.

webboo

It’s as simple as working out which is the top on your iPad.