cats v's wildlife

seamus

CJhaughey wrote: »

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

Indeed, hunting the rare flying grey squirrel. :rolleyes:

morganafay

Mink wrote: »

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!

I agree with this too. But we don't need to kill them, there are others ways, like you said, neutering.

cipeen

morganafay wrote: »

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

Any additional damage our wildlife is bad damage. 1 more is too many.

morganafay wrote: »

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

They're muscular enough to take prey that larger predators would ignore, so it's still additive.

morganafay

I also think something should be said for cats helping wild birds, because we have loads of wild birds that visit everyday and eat the cats' food! If we didn't have cats they might not survive

morganafay

cipeen wrote: »

Any additional damage our wildlife is bad damage. 1 more is too many.



They're muscular enough to take prey that larger predators would ignore, so it's still additive.

I see what you mean, but in my opinion domestic animals are just as important as wildlife. My cats wouldn't be happy to be shut inside all day. I know this because two of them are inside most of the day but will meow to be let out for a few hours, one of them wants to be out about half the time, and two of them won't come inside at all, and if you bring them in they want to be outside. Same with my dogs, they hate coming inside. So I think for my cats, it's unfair to shut them inside.

It's be great if they wouldn't kill wildlife, but that's just the way it is.

And there is no shortage of wild birds around here even with cats around.

And if people can kill wildlife to eat, then why can't cats? I don't think it's worse than killing animals that were raised for meat . . . I kind of think it's better. I'm sure farming has as much effect on the environment as killing some wildlife.

littlebug

what's this about cats killing one bird per month In a matter of weeks I noticed the goldfinch population coming to my garden fell dramatically. It turned out the (well fed) cat from 2 doors down was bringing home 3-4 a week. I'm constantly chasing it and 2 other (also well fed) cats from my garden. That's a serious impact on the bird population IMO

morganafay

All cats are different I guess. I've had literally dozens of cats, and the only times they ever hunted much, was when mothers had babies and they killed rats and the odd crow (no shortage of crows either).

Some cats hunt alot, my dozens of cats never have much, and I live in the country.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

morganafay wrote: »

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

No maybe about it. They are right. You can choose to not believe it but why then go on about not killing any animal when you know deep down that Cats kill birds. ?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

morganafay wrote: »

I also think something should be said for cats helping wild birds, because we have loads of wild birds that visit everyday and eat the cats' food! If we didn't have cats they might not survive

Oh come on! That's really stretching it.

GigaByte

littlebug wrote: »

what's this about cats killing one bird per month In a matter of weeks I noticed the goldfinch population coming to my garden fell dramatically. It turned out the (well fed) cat from 2 doors down was bringing home 3-4 a week. I'm constantly chasing it and 2 other (also well fed) cats from my garden. That's a serious impact on the bird population IMO

It more likely 1 every 2 months, thats what the survey says.

morganafay

Cats kill birds, but people kill animals everyday for food. And I don't mind if my cats kill birds.

The thing is, people have cats, and they're not gonna get rid of them, and we can't all keep them indoors. Some cats can live happily indoors, some can't. We can't just kill them all either.

Maybe we should think of other ways to help the environment and do them first? I try to do things that are good for the environment, but I'm not gonna keep my cats indoors (unless I move to a city or other dangerous place.)

The world would be better off without humans but I don't think we should all kill each other either.

Now I'm hungry so I'm gonna leave this argument, and hopefully won't come back cos it'll hurt my head

morganafay

Also, I just need to say again, I can't see how keeping pets could be worse than farming for the environment/wildlife.

Ok, I'm going away now . . . really

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

morganafay wrote: »

Also, I just need to say again, I can't see how keeping pets could be worse than farming for the environment/wildlife.

Ok, I'm going away now . . . really

I think you're missing the whole premise of the discussion. Cats V Birds. Human activity, farming methods etc are a whole different discussion.

Bye.;)

planetX

It's very subjective which species are seen as 'attractive' and worthy of protection. Why is a songbird more valuable than a fox - both are native wildlife. As someone pointed out, some songbirds are agricultural pests too.
I share it, I'm pleased when my cat kills a mouse, upset when it's a bird. It's just human prejudice, and as a cat owner I'm going to be prejudiced in favour of the animal species I love above all others. I do think there are too many cats, to their own misfortune. What is needed is an incentive, or a compulsion to neuter.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

morganafay wrote: »

I also think something should be said for cats helping wild birds, because we have loads of wild birds that visit everyday and eat the cats' food! If we didn't have cats they might not survive

It's now quite obvious that you do not have the appropiate knowledge to understand cats and wildlife properly. Cats helping songbirds? /facepalm.

planetX wrote: »

It's very subjective which species are seen as 'attractive' and worthy of protection. Why is a songbird more valuable than a fox - both are native wildlife. As someone pointed out, some songbirds are agricultural pests too.

Foxes are considered vermin, most songbirds are considered to be protected. You cannot shoot songbirds or hunt them. Foxes can cause a lot of damage to farm animals too. That's the difference. Why? In some places cats and other animals have dramatically decreased the numbers of rabbits and songbirds. Both animals are beautiful, but some need protection more than others.

I share it, I'm pleased when my cat kills a mouse, upset when it's a bird. It's just human prejudice, and as a cat owner I'm going to be prejudiced in favour of the animal species I love above all others. I do think there are too many cats, to their own misfortune. What is needed is an incentive, or a compulsion to neuter.

True, but not every cat can be neutered.

Graces7

CJhaughey wrote: »

Read my post I am not trigger happy I can think of better ways to spend my time than killing cats.
I am glad that you are TNR'ing, but I know of no-one down here that does that, and even if I did go and buy a live trap and catch these cats who is going to work on them? The local vet?
The bird the cat just killed also may have some young chicks that will starve in due course, is it any different?
I don't anthromorphisise animals, I just treat them as animals and with care and respect.
If I was a heartless bastard I would probably put out poison but I hate poison as it's effects are so indiscriminate to other wildlife.
Shooting is fast and humane done properly, no risk to other animals.

Yes, your local vet will know of local neutering schemes. And most pet rescues have humane traps they lend out; we are waiting now for a couple as all are out sorting 80 ferals in the area.

Then we will tackle a colony of 14.

You have only to ask locally.

And your post spoke of shooting on sight; that is trigger happy by any definition.

Great risk to someone's beloved pet out for an evening walk.

Graces7

Julieta Salmon Tourniquet wrote: »

Where to begin without repeating the points made month after month on this issue? Yes, Cats kill wildlife and that killing is destroying it year after year. You can't deny this anymore than you can deny helicentric theory.

Oh yes we can; that comparison is not valid. And we do.

Graces7

doctor evil wrote: »

Japanese knotweed/zebra muscles etc

Interesting spelling on that last one..

Japanese knotweed was wrongly introduced.. dreadful plant.

There have always been cats in Ireland; they are referred to in history from way back.

And few farms would be without them for vermin control.

Graces7

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.

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?

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

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.

Please don't expect us to believe that you are concerned for cat welfare. Really!!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Graces7 wrote: »

Yes, your local vet will know of local neutering schemes. And most pet rescues have humane traps they lend out; we are waiting now for a couple as all are out sorting 80 ferals in the area.

Then we will tackle a colony of 14.

You have only to ask locally.

And your post spoke of shooting on sight; that is trigger happy by any definition.

Great risk to someone's beloved pet out for an evening walk.

If your cat is on my land eating our precious kingfishers, don't expect it home. It's not trigger happy by any means. Regardless of what you may think. There is a perfectly good reason for the action.

Graces7 wrote: »

Oh yes we can; that comparison is not valid. And we do.

You are denying cats damage wildlife?

Magenta

doctor evil wrote: »

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.

They release pheasants to shoot them!
They breed them and keep them, then release them and get their kicks from shooting them.
They could just kill them for food like you would with chickens, but no, releasing them and shooting them is much more fun.

CJhaughey wrote: »

I shoot for food mainly or to protect my food producing animals

If you're so concerned about protecting your food producing animals then why don't you keep them secure in the first place?

CJhaughey wrote: »

Deer aren't in the least threatened in fact they are superabundant locally.
They also have no predators apart from man.

If deer are as overpopulated in an area as all you ecology-loving hunters like to make out, then do you know what would happen? They would leave the area. If you went to a restaurant and found out it had no food, you'd go somewhere else, wouldn't you? Same thing.

CJhaughey wrote: »

Grey crows and magpies are both vermin and destroy lots of wildbirds every year.

Grey crows and magpies ARE wild birds! And "destroying" other wildbirds is nature!!!! It's called natural selection!
It sounds to me like you kill the birds you don't like, and leave alone the pretty little ones you do like. Robins eat insects, are you going to decide you really like insects and start shooting robins too?

CJhaughey wrote: »

Foxes eat young lambs and my chickens if they could.

Well then get off your ass and make your chicken enclosure fox-proof.

CJhaughey wrote: »

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

Thrushes eat snails.
Tits eat insects and worms.
Native lizards eat insects.
Since they are all clearly murder machines, why aren't you shooting them?

I am so tired of bloodthirsty meatheads bleating on about how they are "protecting wildlife". If you love shooting things so much, join the army.

morganafay

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

It's now quite obvious that you do not have the appropiate knowledge to understand cats and wildlife properly. Cats helping songbirds? /facepalm.

That was a joke, sorry I thought that was obvious! But also to illustrate the point that there are loads of wild birds around my house and my cats haven't wiped them out.

Cats have been around for a long long time, and yet birds still exist. I don't think they're gonna go extinct because of cats anytime soon.

morganafay

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

If your cat is on my land eating our precious kingfishers, don't expect it home. It's not trigger happy by any means. Regardless of what you may think. There is a perfectly good reason for the action.

For whatever reason, you're still killing someone's pet. How can that be justified?

planetX

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

Foxes are considered vermin, most songbirds are considered to be protected. You cannot shoot songbirds or hunt them. Foxes can cause a lot of damage to farm animals too. That's the difference. Why? In some places cats and other animals have dramatically decreased the numbers of rabbits and songbirds. Both animals are beautiful, but some need protection more than others.

.

Considered by whom? I don't consider foxes to be vermin. Why is farming the be all and end all, and as pointed out before farming is responsible for far more damage to native wildlife and their habitats than pets could ever be. Maybe they're farming the chicken that goes into catfood. Maybe blackbirds taste as good as chicken? Starlings cause damage to crops, is it ok for my cat to kill starlings?
I like wild birds, as I like all animals. I don't see them as worthy of 'special' status because they make nice sounds.

Graces7

CJhaughey wrote: »

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.

While this is partly true, you underestimate nature. Species do die out eg dinosaurs, and others take over.

And a new balance emerges then.

Maybe my age gives me a different view; rabbits for example. In the War and at other times, many people would have died for lack of food but for them.

Does it really matter which variety of squirrel survives?

And no mention here in this tirade against cats of the damage to wild life from escaped /released mink. And to livestock also. both hens and fish.

Which do not do great work keeping barns vermin free.

There seems to be a scapegoat element here.

Maybe it is the brids that should be in cages to protect them from these "monsters"! Who sleep purring on my bed now and bring so much pleasure and comfort to so many.

seamus

planetX wrote: »

Considered by whom?

Foxes are generally considered vermin, and not just by farmers. They get into bins and pull it all over the place, they pose a threat to cats (small, granted) and other pets such as rabbits and guinea pigs which are kept in areas accessible to the fox.

Aside from that, they will also spread pestilence and disease by ****ting all over your garden, leaving some lovely toxins there for your kids to get their hands on.

It may not justify killing them, but you can't ignore them on account of being "wildlife" either.

morganafay

seamus wrote: »

Foxes are generally considered vermin, and not just by farmers. They get into bins and pull it all over the place, they pose a threat to cats (small, granted) and other pets such as rabbits and guinea pigs which are kept in areas accessible to the fox.

Aside from that, they will also spread pestilence and disease by ****ting all over your garden, leaving some lovely toxins there for your kids to get their hands on.

It may not justify killing them, but you can't ignore them on account of being "wildlife" either.

All these things can be said about dogs too, when they are left roam, and people don't usually call them vermin (in this country).

Some people think animals are vermin and that makes it ok to kill them, but some people don't think that.

Graces7

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

It is not the fact of cats being adopted as pets but the irresponsible neglecy by people moving and abandoning cats, and not neutering that is the reason for overpopulation.

Which many are striving to rectify and which many more need to help in. Strange though how many ferals gravitate to our doors to be fed while the songbirds fly in great abundance and come on to feed.

And you also forget how nature renews each year.

We hope that you are not harming cats either?

seamus

morganafay wrote: »

All these things can be said about dogs too, when they are left roam, and people don't usually call them vermin (in this country).

Correct. And if a dog was habitually doing this, it would be dealt with by the wardens. So equally foxes causing a nuisance should be dealt with.

planetX

seamus wrote: »

Foxes are generally considered vermin, and not just by farmers. They get into bins and pull it all over the place, they pose a threat to cats (small, granted) and other pets such as rabbits and guinea pigs which are kept in areas accessible to the fox.

Aside from that, they will also spread pestilence and disease by ****ting all over your garden, leaving some lovely toxins there for your kids to get their hands on.

It may not justify killing them, but you can't ignore them on account of being "wildlife" either.

birds dig up bulbs, eat young veg seedlings, could also transmit disease - bird flu. Vermin? It's all subjective.