cats v's wildlife

morganafay

I just mean how can people care so much about wildlife and not about domestic animals or "vermin" living?

morganafay

Well the grey squirrel was introduced, and maybe it shouldn't have been, but it's here now and I think we are messing with naure EVEN MORE to try to kill it. That might cause something else to go wrong that would cause even more damage to nature. And cats have been here for ages, and I really don't think they're causing that much harm.

Anyway I think that farming surely causes ALOT more harm to nature, and alot of people who say that rats/rabbits/foxes are vermin, are farmers.

morganafay

I just don't believe in harming nature, to help nature. We can't make nature balance out,

GigaByte

doctor evil wrote: »

Gigabyte would you not agree that there are too many cats per square kilometre?

You wouldn't find this concentration if they were all living in the wild and had predators after them. Well fed cats that are vaccinated etc are in tip top condition to hunt through out the year.

I haven't a clue how many cats there are per square kilometre but tip top doesn't mean there out hunting. The one thing everyone will say is cats spend most of there time sleeping, not hunting. In the uk alone they think cars are responsible for up to 100 million bird deaths a year and god knows how many mammals?

doctor evil wrote: »

It reeks of double standards that people think its ok for cats to roam and not dogs.

Are cats not held in the same regard?

Even with dogs being kept locked in they still manage to send 5,221 people to hospital in 2009 in the uk. If they were allowed to roam do you think that figure would rise or lower. Even still you often her of dogs killing kids still. I couldn't find any figure for the number of cat attacks?

doctor evil wrote: »

If a cat is kept in you are protecting it from being; run down/shot/poisoned/feline HIV/feline flue/general wackos.

Very true, same could be said for heading into town for beers on a Saturday night!

doctor evil wrote: »

Cats if from kittenhood can be taught to wear a harness. Enclosures that connect to an open window can be constructed in gardens if you want a cat to be able to go out but not roam. Sometimes whole gardens can be cat proofed to prevent escape (like adequate fencing keeping a dog in. There are many products on the market.

The countryside comes with its own dangers.

Rats have colonised urban areas a lot more successfully than songbirds. There is a saying that you are only a few feet away from a rat. Rats will breed faster than songbirds and carry more disease.

Cats hunt by stalking up close, it is what they are built for. I don't think they are built for long chases.

Does anyone know what would happen to the mice and rat population if there where no cats? considering they kill far more of those than birds.

Your average window will kill as many birds as a cat will but its not going to kill one mouse or rat. :eek:

CJhaughey

Magenta wrote: »

Can I ask why you have the gun in the first place?

Sure you can.
I have a shotgun to shoot grey crows,magpies and foxes that try to eat my chickens.
I also shoot rabbits and deer during the year, but not with a shotgun.

CJhaughey

morganafay wrote: »

I just don't believe in harming nature, to help nature. We can't make nature balance out,

If you truly think that you are delusional, man cannot just introduce species here there and everywhere with no regard for environmental effects. Man can effect change on ecosystems that can only be undone or minimised by another manmade action.

morganafay

I don't think we should introduce new animals, but if they are here already, and have been for a long time, I don't think we should kill them. I might be delusional, but it's just what I believe



But I'm anti-killing anything really.

doctor evil

GigaByte wrote: »

Even with dogs being kept locked in they still manage to send 5,221 people to hospital in 2009 in the uk. If they were allowed to roam do you think that figure would rise or lower. Even still you often her of dogs killing kids still. I couldn't find any figure for the number of cat attacks?


Very true, same could be said for heading into town for beers on a Saturday night!

To be fair you are moving the goal posts, the thread is about cats v's wildlife not people.

morganafay

I'd just never be ok with killing animals to try to help nature, it sounds crazy to me. Like killing children to help people, or something, it just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the theory, but I don't think it's a good idea.

doctor evil

morganafay wrote: »

I just mean how can people care so much about wildlife and not about domestic animals or "vermin" living?

People do care, if they didn't there would be poison thrown about all over the place.

doctor evil

morganafay wrote: »

I'd just never be ok with killing animals to try to help nature, it sounds crazy to me. Like killing children to help people, or something, it just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the theory, but I don't think it's a good idea.

So you would be against the extermination of rats/goats from the Galapogas Islands?

How about foxes/rabbits/cats from Australia?

Both very unique ecosystems.

GigaByte

doctor evil wrote: »

To be fair you are moving the goal posts, the thread is about cats v's wildlife not people.

Well why did you bring dogs into the thread then

morganafay

Ok, at least you kill them without letting them suffer, alot of people use poison though. Seen a dog last week who ate slow acting rat poison, and seeing how much pain and suffering he was in, shows how much the rats must suffer too.

I'm not saying that you're wrong to kill vermin, because who am I to be the judge of that. Just saying that it's not something I would ever agree with.

I know I won't be able to change your mind and you won't change mine.

morganafay

doctor evil wrote: »

So you would be against the extermination of rats/goats from the Galapogas Islands?

How about foxes/rabbits/cats from Australia?

Both very unique ecosystems.

Yes, I am against the killing of all animals, unless they are suffering and need to be humanely killed. I don't think humans should have the choice of what lives or dies.

I'm not saying that people who kill animals are evil, just that I choose not to.

doctor evil

GigaByte wrote: »

Well why did you bring dogs into the thread then

As an example of double standards.

Kess73

morganafay wrote: »

In understand your points, and that's fair enough. I just don't mind personally if my cats kill birds.

Like it's upsetting the balance of nature or whatever, but that's changing all the time anyway. Species become instinct, new ones come into existence all the time. Maybe in 1000 years things will be totally different, but I don't think it matters that much, it's just what happens.

Like if 1000 tigers die today, I don't think it's worse than 1000 cows. It would be a shame is all. I think it's a shame that cats kill birds, but it happens.

And cats kill rats, people kill rats, that's destroying the wild population of rats, why does nobody care about the rats?

Rats breed all year round and at such a rate that there is no danger to their numbers.

Cows get bred mostly in domestic enviroments and as such have an artificially high population worldwide due to human involvement. So a 1000 cows is nothing when compared to their numbers.

Tigers have been decimated by human interaction, to the point that losing 1000 of them would put them on the verge of extinction as there is estimated to be somewhere between 1500 tro 2500 wild tigers left worldwide. Going by the rate that they are being wiped out, this planet should have none left within a decade or so.

The domestic, and by association feral, cat populations are also artificially high due to man's involvement. By breeding them as a pet, it introduced an unbalanced amount of predators into an enviroment that cannot sustain a viable amount of prey in the long term.

Take the winter just gone. This year's breeding population of smaller birds has already greatly reduced even before breeding starts. Huge numbers of birds died, but many of the man kept predators, and in the case of feral cats, predators that came about through man's need for a domestic cat, will not have been affected to the same degree, so this spring we will have a reduced number of wild birds trying to breed, but roughly the same number of cats.

So if you had an area last year that had 100 cats and 10000 birds, then this year you may have 200 cats in that same area as the cats will have been able to breed all year round, but you may only be starting with 5000, and the birds are only able to breed at certain times of the year, food supply willing.


I don't want to knock cat owners because I quite like cats myself, but a cat will kill more birds than other predators of birds will. Take the sparrowhawk. It kills garden birds and rodents. But you will never see a sparrowhawk that is fully fed go out and kill or injure a bird and just leave it behind. It kills what it needs to survive and it is a part of the natural way of maintaining bird numbers. In a good year of breeding, the sparrowhawks will feed well and be able to grow it's numbers. In a bad year, as this one will most likely be, the sparrowhawks will drop in numbers as without a set amount of prey some of the hawks will simply starve to death.

Some people have said that there are other ways that man has caused drastic reductions in the numbers of birds and other wildlife. Yes this is true, but I think people need to sit back and just argue this thread on it's title, which is cats versus wildlife.

Myself I have found ways that work to discourage cats from my garden, and with cats being pretty intelligent they learn to avoid the garden by becoming conditioned to certain things.

morganafay

But if all the birds did die out, and there were too many cats and rats and other things, then I believe that nature would balance out, because the predators would have nothing to eat so their numbers would reduce too, or whatever. Species in the world are changing all the time, over millions of years, and it's going to happen anyway, I think we should let it happen. That's just what I think, that even if nature changes, it's not neccessarily a bad thing. It's natural for species to become extinct, it happened before people existed.

The one thing that's really affecting nature is that there are too many humans and we're taking over their environments, and that is bad, and unnatural.

And it's not the cats' fault! It's our fault, so why punish the cats.

Magenta

CJhaughey wrote: »

Sure you can.
I have a shotgun to shoot grey crows,magpies and foxes that try to eat my chickens.
I also shoot rabbits and deer during the year, but not with a shotgun.

Right. So you shoot cats because you "believe that wildlife comes before a domesticated killer" but yet you shoot wildlife yourself.
So it's OK for you to shoot whatever you feel like but a cat should not kill?
It sounds to me like you just go around shooting for kicks.

morganafay

Magenta wrote: »

Right. So you shoot cats because you "believe that wildlife comes before a domesticated killer" but yet you shoot wildlife yourself.
So it's OK for you to shoot whatever you feel like but a cat should not kill?

I agree with this, aren't foxes an important part of the eco system as much as birds? If people can kill for food and other reasons then cats can too.

GigaByte

doctor evil wrote: »

As an example of double standards.

Well then, it might be an idea to start another thread on that topic as to why Dogs are not allowed to roam outside and cats are allowed to roam. I think you'll find it well end up with dog attacks etc..

Anyway it's far safer to keep your dog inside where they are safe,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74dMkz5pVzY&feature=player_embedded

Magenta

morganafay wrote: »

I agree with this, aren't foxes an important part of the eco system as much as birds? If people can kill for food and other reasons then cats can too.

Yep. Foxes are the top of the food chain and hunt rabbits, grey squirrels, rats...
Of course letting nature take its course isn't as much fun to some people as going around with a gun and shooting everything in sight.
If people got off their asses to make sure their chicken enclosures are fox-proof then they wouldn't have to worry about them killing chickens but again... not as much fun as shooting them, it seems.

doctor evil

I doubt there is an artifically high number of hunters out there. Shooters also release pheasants and create sanctuary on their land/land they have access to. You won't find a cat doing that.

cipeen

Yes, human interference and expansion have led to a (severely) negative impact on wildlife, but that doesn't mean that cats should be allowed to amplify our negative impact by being allowed to roam and kill.

Cats are an introduced species to Ireland, so their impact won't be 'natural' or 'balancing'.

I'd be happy to see a law introduced that made it illegal to let a cat roam wild. Same as it's illegal to introduce/spread pest species like Japanese Knotweed.

morganafay

I think people should do whatever they feel is morally right, but not just do things and then try to justify it to themselves by saying it's for the good of nature. I'm not saying that people here are doing that, but it's definitely what some people do.

And personally if a fox was killing my rabbits, and I had a gun, I wouldn't shoot it. I would make my rabbits more secure.

Kess73

morganafay wrote: »

But if all the birds did die out, and there were too many cats and rats and other things, then I believe that nature would balance out, because the predators would have nothing to eat so their numbers would reduce too, or whatever. Species in the world are changing all the time, over millions of years, and it's going to happen anyway, I think we should let it happen. That's just what I think, that even if nature changes, it's not neccessarily a bad thing. It's natural for species to become extinct, it happened before people existed.

The one thing that's really affecting nature is that there are too many humans and we're taking over their environments, and that is bad, and unnatural.

And it's not the cats' fault! It's our fault, so why punish the cats.

Cats would not die out if all the birds did though. The cat population is artificial due to humans bringing about the domestic cat. People sustain numbers of cats that would never happen if the cat popultaion only had itself to rely on for food.

An better example of how cat populations fare without human involvement in artificially boosting it's food supply.

I never suggested punishing cats, I just think people need to be more aware of the knock on effect of things. Things like a cat having a litter and the litter being let loose. Or the dumping of cats when the owners decide that they do not want them. These kind of things introduce an animal with no predator of it's own into the enviroment and create a system where the apex predators are greater in number than they should be in relation to prey numbers.

My own way of discouraging cats is a water gun. The cat gets squirted a few times over a period of time and it does learn to avoid the garden it gets a squirt in. The way I see it, the cat is unharmed, and the birds in my garden have a slightly better chance.

Feral cats on the other hand can become a serious pest if their numbers are allowed to become too great in areas. They can hunt in groups and have been know to drive out and kill house cats. In other countries there are animals that will prey on feral cats and somewhat manage their numbers, but over here there seems to be an explosion of them. Another thing that does not help is that many people cannot tell the difference, or understand the difference, between a feral cat and a stray cat that is homeless.

Mink

My cat has never brought a present home in 4 years, never saw her kill anything except a spider once.

If she came home with birds on a regular basis, I would feel the need to keep her in or else watch her for short jaunts out the back. I would try a bell first of course.

I wouldn't feel right letting her kill birds & not doing anything about it. That's just my personal feelings on it. I guess I'm lucky she's crap at hunting.

Unless... are there other people whose cat actually kills stuff (they know for sure) but don't bring it home or make it obvious in the garden?

I also agree with post above re feral cats. It's such a problem. People really need to neuter/spay. Catch ferals with humane traps from SPCA's & get them fixed at the SPCA & re-release them. You wouldn't have to have them in your house a full day if you don't want them, but at least they'd stop reproducing!

CJhaughey

Magenta wrote: »

Right. So you shoot cats because you "believe that wildlife comes before a domesticated killer" but yet you shoot wildlife yourself.
So it's OK for you to shoot whatever you feel like but a cat should not kill?
It sounds to me like you just go around shooting for kicks.

I shoot for food mainly or to protect my food producing animals
Deer aren't in the least threatened in fact they are superabundant locally.
They also have no predators apart from man.
Likewise rabbits although Myxamatosis has slowed them down in the last year.
Grey crows and magpies are both vermin and destroy lots of wildbirds every year.
Foxes eat young lambs and my chickens if they could.

I don't go around shooting thrush, tits, and killing shrews and native lizards off though. That OK with you?

morganafay

cipeen wrote: »

Yes, human interference and expansion have led to a (severely) negative impact on wildlife, but that doesn't mean that cats should be allowed to amplify our negative impact by being allowed to roam and kill.

Cats are an introduced species to Ireland, so their impact won't be 'natural' or 'balancing'.

I'd be happy to see a law introduced that made it illegal to let a cat roam wild. Same as it's illegal to introduce/spread pest species like Japanese Knotweed.

Maybe you're right, but I just can't believe that cats do that much damage, so I will continue to let them roam.

Like I don't think most pet cats are great hunters, because they're not improving their skills all the time, they're mostly lazing around in the sun or something, so I think they mostly kill the weaker animals.

Like a pet cat is not very muscular, compared to wild animals, that are much much fitter

CJhaughey

Magenta wrote: »

Yep. Foxes are the top of the food chain and hunt , grey squirrels,

That would be the greater treeclimbing fox then would it? :rolleyes:

morganafay

Kess73 wrote: »

Cats would not die out if all the birds did though. The cat population is artificial due to humans bringing about the domestic cat. People sustain numbers of cats that would never happen if the cat popultaion only had itself to rely on for food.

An better example of how cat populations fare without human involvement in artificially boosting it's food supply.

I never suggested punishing cats, I just think people need to be more aware of the knock on effect of things. Things like a cat having a litter and the litter being let loose. Or the dumping of cats when the owners decide that they do not want them. These kind of things introduce an animal with no predator of it's own into the enviroment and create a system where the apex predators are greater in number than they should be in relation to prey numbers.

My own way of discouraging cats is a water gun. The cat gets squirted a few times over a period of time and it does learn to avoid the garden it gets a squirt in. The way I see it, the cat is unharmed, and the birds in my garden have a slightly better chance.

Feral cats on the other hand can become a serious pest if their numbers are allowed to become too great in areas. They can hunt in groups and have been know to drive out and kill house cats. In other countries there are animals that will prey on feral cats and somewhat manage their numbers, but over here there seems to be an explosion of them. Another thing that does not help is that many people cannot tell the difference, or understand the difference, between a feral cat and a stray cat that is homeless.

I see your point. I don't think my cats personally have a bad effect on wildlife though. Like I said out of my five cats, only 2 ever hunt, and hardly ever. If they were always killing animals and I thought they were causing harm to the environment then I would try to stop them or keep them inside. One of my cats used to bring home a bird a day, so I put a bell on her, and she stopped. (Those were actually pet doves, but almost the same as wild pigeons really).